Yoko exhibit at Japan Society (New York City)
Diana
The Widow Peaks
Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde. By AMEI WALLACH
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Yoko Ono: Works
Slide Show: Selections from "Yes Yoko Ono" at the Japan Society (12 photos)
Multimedia Extras of Yoko Ono's Work
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Photograph by Lyle Ashton Harris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
There comes a moment during the concert when Yoko Ono throws the audience an
appraising look over her jumbo blue rimless glasses. She's a woman of 67 --
hard to believe as she strips off a tailored jacket to reveal arms absent of
extra flesh and thighs wrapped in tight denim. This is not her crowd. It's not
even a crowd that belongs to DJ Spooky or Thurston Moore, Sonic Youth's Pied
Piper of experimental rock, up there on stage to give her context. A frumpled
dot-com type is reaching for his P.D.A. and muttering, "I don't think I've ever
met a Yoko Ono fan." They've come for Stereolab, which is next on the jazz
festival bill at Battery Park this summer night.
So Yoko takes one look and then she goes for it: the scream, the big one, the
yaayaayaah ululating primal scream that wrings her body. DJ Spooky turns that
big head of his in its knitted hood and starts paying more attention to her
than to his keyboard. She's a madwoman up there, gasping and keening, "Listen
to your heartbeat!" She's screaming the way she imagined screaming for a
composition she conceived in 1961, when she was hosting avant-garde events in
her Chambers Street loft and improvising new art forms. She wrote it down,
titled it "Voice Piece for Soprano" and later published it in her book
"Grapefruit": "Scream. /1. against the wind / 2. against the wall / 3. against
the sky."
The world may be better acquainted with Yoko Ono the pop personality than Yoko
Ono the artist, but she doesn't make such distinctions. Music/art,
avant-garde/mass market, noh shriek/rock beat -- it's all just one more way of
saying it. "I fall in love with a concept and I use it in many ways," she says
later. "I made a record called 'Fly,' and a film called 'Fly' and a billboard
called 'Fly.' The concept is the key."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Amei Wallach frequently writes about art.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
However irresistible the concepts and wordplay may be to members of the
art-infused underground like Thurston Moore, who set "Voice Piece" to music on
his own CD, they haven't endeared Ono to a world reared on rock. At Battery
Park the applause registers just above polite.
Backstage, Sean Ono Lennon is hanging out amid the gamy garbage cans. Often
it's him with his girlfriend, Yuka Honda, and her group Cibo Matto up there
onstage with his mother. "I think what makes her unique as an artist," Lennon
says, "is she really just thinks of art as this total thing that encompasses
film, theater, performance, music, visual art and everything else. Well,
they're expressions, they're manifestations of your inner, you know, workings."
DJ Spooky sheds his hood and becomes the mild-mannered aesthetic theoretician
Paul D. Miller, in cleanshaven head and khakis. "Yoko's coming out of a hybrid
Western and Eastern sense of postmysticism," he says. "She's a shaman. Shamans
were transcendent figures who could guide you on an experience. That's how I
view her. Like Joseph Beuys," he says, likening her to one of the central
figures of postwar European art.
It is a startling claim, but this is the moment to make it. John Lennon once
called Yoko Ono the world's "most famous unknown artist." But this fall, at
last, she gets the full museum-retrospective treatment plus the kind of
scholarly catalog essential to recasting an artistic reputation.
"Yes Yoko Ono" opens at the Japan Society Gallery on Oct. 18 before traveling
for two years. The retrospective posits her as a pioneering performance and
conceptual artist, and there are other Manhattan events to bolster the
argument: a week of her films at the Whitney Museum and a new installation and
old film stills at Ubu Gallery.
As usual, Ono will be juggling her season with her more famous role as wife and
widow. It's the 20th anniversary of John Lennon's death. He would have turned
60 on Oct. 9. That day she'll be at the opening of the John Lennon museum in
Tokyo, and soon after she'll be on hand to open a Lennon exhibition at the Rock
'n' Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. She has also been enmeshed in releasing
"The Beatles Anthology" as a book and reissuing two Lennon-Ono albums.
The timing of competing Ono-Lennon celebrations may seem weird, but actually it
makes a point. However trailblazing her art-making activities, in the end they
were finger exercises for her most improbable achievement: how she and Lennon
together used the techniques of the avant-garde to turn their celebrity into
art.
few days after the concert I leave my shoes at the door and sink my toes into
Yoko Ono's white carpeting, passing a covey of glassy-eyed bronze cats that she
has cast, passing John Lennon's portrait "Mona Yoko" over the entrance
fireplace and Andy Warhol's portrait of John Lennon over the dining-room
mantel, until I reach the apartment-size kitchen where her life takes place.
For friends, there's the comfortable clutter of the corner with an
ivory-colored sofa, plug-in foot massager and messages from Sean stuck into a
mirror frame studded with silver pineapples. For more serious business, there's
the vast mosaic kitchen table, where Eiji, her Madison Avenue hairdresser, did
her spiky, asymmetrical cut before the concert.
Lennon's favorite, "Ceiling Painting," 1966. Photograph by Oded Lobl,
courtesy of The Japan Society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
It's one of the incongruities she lives by: uptown privilege, downtown
proclivities. Early on she rebelled against her long family line of Japanese
aristocrats and bankers -- her father ran the Bank of Tokyo in New York --
though she's successfully managed the multi-hundred-million dollar Lennon
estate with their genes. She found herself as an artist in the late 1950's, in
a $50.50-a-month loft in lower Manhattan furnished with orange crates, and her
friends Nam June Paik, from the old days, and David Byrne and Kiki Smith, from
the new, live down there too. Now Sean's a part of the downtown New York music
community, and he helps make a place for her among the new avant-garde. This
younger generation gets her music, knows her art; she's home.
Still, she is something of an anomaly, arriving as she does at, say, Tonic, the
homeroom of experimental sound on the Lower East Side, in a Jaguar. "It's a
complex thing to be Yoko," says Sam Havadtoy, her companion of almost 20 years.
As Ono leads me to the kitchen island and seats herself with her back to the
view of gargoyles and rooftops, she says, "I have to tell you a story," and
begins a tale of a Japanese lord and an "incredibly important" painting master
that could be out of her own family history. Her maternal grandfather, Zenjiro
Yasuda, was founder of the Yasuda Bank and eventually amassed a fortune. When
he met her grandmother, however, he was a poor boy from the provinces. Ono
relishes the parallels to her own life -- the working-class boy from Liverpool
who became great and the aristocratic Japanese girl he wed. And John, she says,
always thought he resembled her grandfather. "I told John, 'Don't wish for it,
because my grandfather was assassinated,' "she says. "Isn't that amazing?"
"Painting To Hammer A Nail," 1961/1966. Photograph by John Bigelow Taylor,
courtesy of The Japan Society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
On and off for Ono's first seven years, her family spent short periods in
America, enough to make her an outsider at home, a foreigner who "smelled of
butter." From childhood she was trained in classical piano and voice, and she
went to school with Emperor Akihito. By the early 1950's, she and her family
were living in Scarsdale, N.Y. There she was an outsider again, labeled a
"chink," and estranged within the family.
In an adolescent depression that brought on earaches so severe that she lay in
a darkened room wearing sanitary pads like earmuffs to block out sound, she
made her first artworks. She lit a match and watched it burn. Then another.
Eventually she wrote down the phases of this evanescent ritual. In 1955, after
she enrolled at Sarah Lawrence College, met and married the Japanese composer
Toshi Ichiyanagi (now one of the leading electronic composers in Japan) and
encountered the downtown New York art scene, she began to perform the
match-burning obsession in public.
Ono doesn't wear jewelry or makeup. The older she gets, the more she resembles
Georgia O'Keeffe, of the pared-down unequivocal bones, but it's misleading.
There's something fluttery, anxious and insistent about Ono, something yielding
until you push against it. "I've always had confidence in my work; confidence
as a genius," she told a colleague. But Ono clearly has something to prove,
given the global scale of her ambition, which she describes with an unsettling
brew of Oprah-like spirituality, flower-child mysticism and a vernacular
version of Eastern religion. "Wherever I go I'm trying to heal myself, heal the
earth, heal the universe, heal the people who came to the concert or the show,"
she says.
She began as an artist in the late 1950's, the moment of anti-art, of life as
art, of happenings, assemblages, the poetry of the Beats. When Ono made
guttural groans while an empty baby carriage was wheeled back and forth across
the stage and an amplified toilet flushed, there was a framework for it.
Japanese concepts like Zen Buddhism were in the air through John Cage, who made
music out of the vagrant found sounds of everyday life. What was Ono's alone
was a passion to share everything she'd ever experienced; a lifetime's intimacy
with the ritual events of haiku, Kabuki and flower arranging; and a poetic
sensibility that pulsated between the suicidal and the inconceivable:
"Blood Piece
Use your blood to paint.
Keep painting until you faint. (a)
Keep painting until you die. (b)"
She wrote poems as cryptic as a Zen koan, and used army surplus canvas to make
paintings that invited participation in the poems:
"Painting For The Wind
Make a hole,
Leave it in the wind. "
Eventually the instructions themselves printed on blank canvas became the
painting. In the "Yes Yoko Ono," catalog, her archivist, Jon Hendricks, credits
her with a seminal role in the creation of Fluxus, and the critic Bruce
Altshuler argues for her instruction paintings as the first works in which
words -- the idea -- supplanted the object. Not everyone saw it that way at the
time. When she first showed her instruction paintings in 1962, Donald Richie,
an influential champion of Japanese culture, eviscerated her for ideas
"borrowed . . . especially from John Cage" and having "the creativity of a
primary school's athletic festival."
"It was terrible!" she recalls. "The language dishonored me, and I'm one of
those people who do not feel hurt, even if somebody calls me a whore. Since
then I have been humiliated so much by the world that now I think, Oh, again?
But that was the first time."
She retreated to a sanitarium. She emerged divorced, remarried to the filmmaker
Tony Cox and pregnant with their daughter, Kyoko. Richie's attack engendered
"Cut Piece," an excruciating performance in which she appeared onstage with a
pair of scissors and invited the audience to cut off her clothes. Kyoko's birth
made her feel "trapped the way a man would feel," and some months after her
daughter was born, she fled to New York, but Cox and Kyoko followed her. They
settled down together, but the marriage disintegrated. After she married
Lennon, Ono and Cox shared joint custody of Kyoko until Cox kidnapped her.
Headlines throughout the early 1970's chronicled Ono's search for her daughter,
whom she did not find until recently, she says, and they have now established a
relationship.
John Lennon met Yoko Ono because of her art, a day before the opening of her
November, 1966 exhibition in London. "Yes Yoko Ono" takes its title from his
favorite piece, called "Ceiling Painting." You climbed a ladder and looked
through a magnifying glass, and in tiny letters it said, "Yes." "It's a great
relief when . . . it doesn't say, 'No,' "Lennon told Jann Wenner for Rolling
Stone. But soon Beatles fans were saying no to Yoko Ono, and they have been
ever since. She was the Dragon Lady, "John Rennon's Excrusive Gloupie," as
Esquire put it with stunning bigotry soon after they married in 1969.
"I think the image of the Asian woman up until me was Madam Butterfly," she
says. "Madam Butterfly is about a woman who had an affair with an American
officer and she kills herself. I was touching a sacred cow, but I also didn't
seem to be that vulnerable woman who is going to commit suicide. I was coming
right at your face." But it's much more than that. She's still as loathed --
and less often immoderately admired -- as she ever was. She's the older woman
who infiltrated the Beatles and was blamed for breaking them up, who drove her
husband away and manipulated him back, who let Annie Leibovitz photograph her
clothed while the pop idol curls around her naked. Lennon took Sean to school
and went home to bake bread while she took meetings and leveraged a financial
empire. And then there's her work. First, there's the caterwauling she calls
music. But beyond that, she used everything in her life -- her problems, her
privilege, her opportunities, her difference -- as fodder for her art. Her
biggest accomplishment is that she managed to use fame that way too.
Aside from the comedy, glamour and visceral challenge of the early work, Ono's
real contribution was to make celebrity into a performance-art piece. She used
fame as a material, like paint. She wasn't always very good at it; the art can
be sententious. But the only other artist who confronted celebrity head-on was
Andy Warhol, and he had to create it to critique and celebrate it. Lennon was
her willing collaborator, because he had no choice but to live celebrity from
the inside. After she married him, neither did Ono. Even now, she engages in a
ritual of self-inflicted exposure, saying that she only decided to go ahead and
have Sean because "I had been such a bitch to John." But today, ordinary people
on TV reveal intimate details you didn't want to know. Pregnant actresses
compete to pose nude for Vanity Fair. Men stay home with the baby. We no longer
need Ono to push us or to push around.
iving her life as performance art has carried a price: a love-hate relationship
to the love-hate attention she gets. "I want to be normal," she says. "I'm
almost goody-goody, because the world suspects so much of me that I say,
'Please realize I'm not a demon.' "
The loathing won't go away. There's always something to fuel it, like questions
about whether Julian, Lennon's son from his first marriage, was treated fairly.
He has said recently that she was "manipulative," but David Warmflash, who has
been the family lawyer since the mid-70's, says that financially he was treated
equally with Sean. "Before his death, John would not give Julian money, but
Yoko gave him money," he says.
She used fame as a material, like paint.
The question about her money occasions a relentless barrage of phone calls from
her, correcting, cajoling, amending. Ono says she doesn't know her net worth.
"Anybody who gives out their net worth belongs in a mental institution," she
says. She's afraid, and she believes she has reason to be afraid; a reporter
divulged the couple's address in 1980, she says, and soon afterward Lennon was
stalked and killed. "My worth is close to Paul McCartney's," she offers
finally, which The Sunday Times of London's Rich List 2000 estimated at 550
million pounds, or about $775 million. "Why is the money a question that no one
will skip?" Ono protests. "Most artists are evaluated for themselves. Would you
ask Jasper Johns his net worth? Why does everyone have to ask, Did you break up
the Beatles? Life is too short for me to keep on protesting or explaining or
making speeches. My work should speak for itself. But my work never spoke for
itself; it's taken 40 years for people to respond to the work of 40 years ago."
ne evening when I arrive there's a pile of shoes at the door. Yoko Ono is
creating her piece for the Ubu Gallery. Since the old days on Chambers Street,
when Marcel Duchamp, Peggy Guggenheim and Max Ernst dropped in on the concerts
she organized with La Monte Young, she's invited friends and luminaries to
participate in her art projects. Tonight, it's what she calls "the circle of
artists I belong to," a mismatched assortment consisting of Kiki Smith, Nam
June Paik, Shigeko Kubota, Lawrence Weiner, Donald Baechler, Jann Wenner and
Jeff Koons. She's very worried about my presence. "In 20 years we've never had
press here with our friends," Havadtoy tells me. Ono tries to draw off the
danger. "Don't hurt them with your witticism; you can be witty about me," she
offers handsomely. One by one, the artists sit in a generic black office chair,
facing her across the last word in digital cameras in the white living room so
she can photograph their eyes, then blindfold them and photograph again. The
white baby grand piano from Lennon is behind the technician. The early-evening
sun skims a sea of Central Park trees, slanting through the window. The look
Ono throws them is her over-the-glasses appraising look. She's in the moment.
Jeff Koons wants an art tour of the apartment: the Surrealist paintings of
Magritte, a sure key to Ono's sensibility, the ancient Asian and Egyptian
sculpture, the 3,000-year-old bronze cat Sekhmet from Karnak, which faces out
the window toward Strawberry Fields. "You don't see a lot of self-reinvention
in American art," says Baechler. "Think about Ellsworth Kelly doing the same
painting for 40 years. I always see that specter looming. How do you keep
engaged?"
Ono does it by moving on. Even if it means casting 100 bronze cats with
flashing eyes that wouldn't be out of place in a Disney shop. So what if the
cats open her up to ridicule? They've saved her from stagnation. As for the
ridicule, like everything else, it will just be recycled into another work of
art.
September 24, 2000
nowhere man
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-ono.html
>
> The Widow Peaks
> Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde.
your patent hatred of all things Yoko shows through Diana.
WAG
Yes it does... in virtually everything she posts.
please check the link in the article (I started a thread earlier which
doesn't quote the entire article, but includes thre fact that the SMILE film
starring the young John of 1968 is excerpted [RealPlayer] and is wonderful to
see on the Internet. Also there is a reproduction of the *YES* piece that
first brought John and Yoko together, because it is so positive.
A very balanced NYT article, I might add. Neither overpraises nor denigrates.
Since I'm going back to NY in a month or so, I'll be sure to see the exhibit
and purchase a catalog. Will report firsthand to rmb on what I see there.
Francie
--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
The wicked work harder to preach hell than the righteous do to get to heaven.
~ American Proverb ~
It is easier to love humanity as a whole than to love one's neighbor. ~ Eric
Hoffer ~
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
D 28IF
> nowhere man <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> Diana wrote:
>>
>> > http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000924mag-ono.html
>> >
>> > The Widow Peaks
>> > Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde.
>>
>> your patent hatred of all things Yoko shows through Diana.
>>
>>
>
>Yes it does... in virtually everything she posts.
I'm sorry, I must be missing something.
Did Diana post a NYT article headline and link? If so, how is that Diana being
negative towards Yoko?
WAG
She didn't post the links.
Have you read the article?
This is Diana's favorite method of covering her own ass. Now she can say "Oh
look! I posted a news article about Yoko without commenting! This * proves* I
don't hate her!"
Some of us may be considered "sycophants" and we may be more understanding
about how deeply John loved Yoko, but we're not so gullible that we can't see
exactly how Diana feels about Yoko.
jumpin' bean
TWO OBSERVATIONS:
Is this mad woman still howling and shrieking as a form of music? Some
things never change do they?
It seems that in order to get an interview with her you must promise in
advance to make it a suck up piece.
"Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000923194650...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
*****SNIP*****
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jumpin' bean
"WAG" <franc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:8qjula$h1s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> She didn't post the links.
> Have you read the article?
>
> This is Diana's favorite method of covering her own ass. Now she can say
"Oh
> look! I posted a news article about Yoko without commenting! This *
proves* I
> don't hate her!"
>
> Some of us may be considered "sycophants" and we may be more understanding
> about how deeply John loved Yoko, but we're not so gullible that we can't
see
> exactly how Diana feels about Yoko.
>
> Francie
>
The article was a major Yoko suck up piece ya nitwit! I don't think D will
be paying much attention to you on what Yoko articles she should post.
>
> --
> http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
>
> The wicked work harder to preach hell than the righteous do to get to
heaven.
> ~ American Proverb ~
>
> It is easier to love humanity as a whole than to love one's neighbor. ~
Eric
> Hoffer ~
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Capt.Vegemite
"jumpin' bean" <jum...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
news:39cd...@post.usenet.com...
>
> TWO OBSERVATIONS:
>
> Is this mad woman still howling and shrieking as a form of music? Some
> things never change do they?
gee when are you gonna start calloig her a little nip again jumpin bean?
Diana
>> > Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde.
>>
What in heaven's name are you talking about? Now I can't even post an article
without being accused of hatred?
- - - - -
Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your heart.
Peace is not God's gift to human beings, but their gift to one another.
~~ Elie Wiesel, Concentration Camp Survivor
nowhere man
> >> > The Widow Peaks
> >> > Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde.
> >>
> >> your patent hatred of all things Yoko shows through Diana.
>
> What in heaven's name are you talking about? Now I can't even post an article
> without being accused of hatred?
You just keep going back to the one theme....i.e. your hatred of Yoko. This shit
dates back years. Get over it. (at least you have dropped the anti-Yoko
signature line)
What about some nice George Harrison stuff for a change?
PS - am I no longer in your killfile?
nowhere man
> x-no-archive: yes
> The article is, as Francie said, a balanced one. Do
> you think Diana wrote "The Widow Peaks" comment? I
> didn't follow the link as it involved registering,
> but that appears to be the name of the article,
> besides which there's nothing derogatory about it.
>
> You owe Diana an apology. -laura
I have not gone to the url.
All I saw was
"The Widow Peaks
Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde."
Are these Diana's words or those of the article...who knows...you have to
go along to the url and no doubt register with the newspaper to see the
article.
I words, regardless of who they belong to, are most unnecessary. Why the
need for 'widow'? What's this about 'Widow Peaks'? Doesn't this sound
critical to you?
The next line - "Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde." We
now know that the widow is Yoko. The tone in the rest of the line is
smuggy and critical to my ears anyway.
As for apologies. Yes, Diana owes me a hell of a big one. But that's
old news.
Will
WAG
"jumpin' bean" <jum...@SoftHome.net> wrote:
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> "WAG" <franc...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:8qjula$h1s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > Have you read the article?
> >
> > This is Diana's favorite method of covering her own ass. Now she can say
> "Oh
> > look! I posted a news article about Yoko without commenting! This *
> proves* I
> > don't hate her!"
> >
> > Some of us may be considered "sycophants" and we may be more understanding
> > about how deeply John loved Yoko, but we're not so gullible that we can't
> see
> > exactly how Diana feels about Yoko.
> >
> > Francie
> >
>
> be paying much attention to you on what Yoko articles she should post.
>
I refuse to do intellectual battle with an unarmed opponent.
Crawl back under your rock and learn how to read, you ugly little bigot.
WAG
nowhere man <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
> lstoll wrote:
>
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > nowhere man wrote:
> > >
> > you think Diana wrote "The Widow Peaks" comment? I
> > didn't follow the link as it involved registering,
> > but that appears to be the name of the article,
> > besides which there's nothing derogatory about it.
> >
Registration is free, Laura. I would have thought you would at least want to
see the film footage of John.
John Whelan
news:39CDF309...@lineone.net...
> lstoll wrote:
>
> > x-no-archive: yes
> >
> > nowhere man wrote:
> > >
> > you think Diana wrote "The Widow Peaks" comment? I
> > didn't follow the link as it involved registering,
> > but that appears to be the name of the article,
> > besides which there's nothing derogatory about it.
> >
>
> I have not gone to the url.
>
> All I saw was
>
> Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde."
>
> go along to the url and no doubt register with the newspaper to see the
> article.
The "heading" belongs to the "New York Times". You are
"reacting here", Will, to Francie's usual "mantra" on Diana.
The article is well-written and it is "balanced" in it's report.
It traces Yoko's involvement with art as early as the 1950's and
into the '60s and what she is currently doing...very indepth report
in this area, re: Yoko's art, music, etc., very interesting!!!
The article also talks about the usual negative image that the
fans had of her back in '69. But to be fair about this, I would not
expect anything less focused from the media at this time with
the immenent release of The Beatles Anthology ( You could say
the same thing about a paper here in Canada which focused squarly
on the old "Pete Best" question...about what caused his departure
in the band after the paper fed him a direct quote from the Anthology
book! However, as I recall, overall, the article on Pete was excellent!)
That being said, the "New York Times" report is pretty "balanced"
overall. I learn't a lot from that article just like we learn a lot from
all the other great links Diana has posted here (even before Ms.
Schwartz arrived, remember???)
> As for apologies. Yes, Diana owes me a hell of a big one. But that's
> old news.
No. I don't think so. You owe her one! I think you should check out
these "news headers" first and actually read the article for a change
rather than to pounce on Francie's usual "mantra" on Diana. Diana
didn't make the headline up, rather, a "New York Times reporter"
coined it!
Best Regards As Always,
John in Canada
> Will
>
>
>
WAG
an...@freenet.carleton.ca (John Whelan) wrote:
> I think you should check out
> these "news headers" first and actually read the article for a change
> rather than to pounce on Francie's usual "mantra" on Diana.
>
You're confused as usual, Wail-On. Diana's the one with the mantra, which
goes something like this:
I don't hate Yoko, just everything she does.
John's uncle's house, John's family's homes, Julian's rightful inheritance,
Douglas's civil suit (it's a crime!), John's wanting to be with Paul (she
prevented it), and blahblahblah.
Will posted first... I simply agreed with him based on nearly a year of
reading Diana's repetitions of her Yoko Mantra.
And I posted the New York Times Magazine piece well before Diana. You just
chose to ignore that.
Francie
nowhere man
> Will posted first... I simply agreed with him based on nearly a year of
> reading Diana's repetitions of her Yoko Mantra.
it goes back beyond that.
The most infamous thread regarding this subject was the one Diana initiated along
the lines of the 10 things I hate most about Yoko.
It generated much feedback in here. Ian, among many others, pressed Diana on the
thread over many days/weeks. It was pure blatant hatred.
The thing totally confuses me. For example, I don't particularly like Albert
Goldman and Fred Seaman. However, I don't go out of my way to start thread
titles on them or go searching for news articles on them to post in here. I
don't have a fixation on people that I don't like.
Those that do, tend to worry me.
Will
nowhere man
> "nowhere man" <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:39CDF309...@lineone.net...
> > lstoll wrote:
> >
> > > x-no-archive: yes
> > >
> > > nowhere man wrote:
> > > >
> > > The article is, as Francie said, a balanced one. Do
> > > you think Diana wrote "The Widow Peaks" comment? I
> > > didn't follow the link as it involved registering,
> > > but that appears to be the name of the article,
> > > besides which there's nothing derogatory about it.
> > >
> > > You owe Diana an apology. -laura
> >
> > I have not gone to the url.
> >
> > All I saw was
> >
> > "The Widow Peaks
> > Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde."
> >
> > Are these Diana's words or those of the article...who knows...you have to
> > go along to the url and no doubt register with the newspaper to see the
> > article.
>
> The "heading" belongs to the "New York Times". You are
> "reacting here", Will, to Francie's usual "mantra" on Diana.
actually I was reacting John to Diana's usual mantra on Yoko Ono. Has been
going on for years.
> The article is well-written and it is "balanced" in it's report.
why did Diana only post the title then? The title was it seems the most
unbalanced part of the article.
> > As for apologies. Yes, Diana owes me a hell of a big one. But that's
> > old news.
>
> No. I don't think so.
John, I don't think you know the history. It goes way back.
> You owe her one! I think you should check out
> these "news headers" first and actually read the article for a change
a bit heavy there John.
>
> rather than to pounce on Francie's usual "mantra" on Diana.
I was reacting to Diana's almost daily fixation on Yoko Ono. Her hatred of the
woman is well known around these parts.
> Diana
> didn't make the headline up, rather, a "New York Times reporter"
> coined it!
and Diana happened to stumble on it and post it for us. How convenient.
John, Diana is as transparent as my cat when she's hungry.
As for apologies, Diana owes me a hell of a big one from many moons ago. When
my parents were being mocked, by a person you (of all people) know only too
well in this forum, Diana posted a long article on how much she liked this
particular poster. It was a calculated post. It hit its mark.
Any friendship her and I had enjoyed ended at that particular moment.
All me best,
Will
huzzlewhat
> lstoll wrote:
> > The article is, as Francie said, a balanced one. Do
> > you think Diana wrote "The Widow Peaks" comment? I
> > didn't follow the link as it involved registering,
> > but that appears to be the name of the article,
> > besides which there's nothing derogatory about it.
> >
> > You owe Diana an apology. -laura
>
> I have not gone to the url.
>
> All I saw was
>
> "The Widow Peaks
> Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde."
>
> Are these Diana's words or those of the article...who knows...you have to
> go along to the url and no doubt register with the newspaper to see the
> article.
But didn't Diana's post include the entire article? It seemed like a good
article to me -- there were some negative things, some positive things;
all in all, it seemed balanced. She posted the link to the article, so
that anyone who wanted to could go to the web site and see the original,
and posted the text here, for those who might not have the time or the
capability to check out the URL. There was no word in that post that was
Diana's -- it was all a direct transcription of the NYT article. I can't
see how that shows hatred -- especially since the article was balanced
with an overall positive tone.
> I words, regardless of who they belong to, are most unnecessary. Why the
> need for 'widow'? What's this about 'Widow Peaks'? Doesn't this sound
> critical to you?
>
> The next line - "Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde." We
> now know that the widow is Yoko. The tone in the rest of the line is
> smuggy and critical to my ears anyway.
Although the widow reference is annoying, "peaks" is hardly negative.
It's actually very clever, and complimentary -- if it were "peaked," it
would say that she is now past it. Instead, it says that she's now at a
creative peak, that she's getting exposure and appreciation for her work.
If only they didn't have to throw in the widow reference in order to make
the clever pun ...
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."
John Whelan
"WAG" <franc...@excite.com> wrote in message news:8ql456$nak$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8ql0sf$3n4$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> an...@freenet.carleton.ca (John Whelan) wrote:
> > these "news headers" first and actually read the article for a change
> >
>
Sorry. No Sale.
The article was written by a "New York Times
reporter," not Diana.
The article only had 1 tenth of a percentage out
of 10 percent of the overall article that dealt with
the negative image of Yoko. Hardly slander
considering it traced and delved into the fascinating
history on Yoko's art and music. And there is a
hell of a lot more in that article than what your
suggesting here to group. :-)
As always, Francie, you're "bar brat" tactics here
on Rmb never ceases to amaze me. Why don't
you write a letter to the "New York Times" and condemn
what they wrote? Are you up to the challenge??
Best Regards,
John in Canada
John Whelan
> John Whelan wrote:
> actually I was reacting John to Diana's usual mantra on Yoko Ono. Has been
> going on for years.
Yes, and that's exactly why Will, I suggest you
read the article first...if only to learn what was
really written in the article. Typical Francie has
responded in her usual "impulsive way"...only
one-tenth of the article focused in on anything negative.
The remainder of the article, that is 90 percent of
it, is very favorable and, I might add, educational.
You can register to the New York without cost and
it only takes a few moments, and enjoy a very
well written article. :-)
Best Regards,
John
WAG
an...@freenet.carleton.ca (John Whelan) wrote:
> Why don't
> you write a letter to the "New York Times" and condemn
> what they wrote? Are you up to the challenge??
>
>
You've gone round the bend on this one, Whelan.
Your attempts to make a general attack on me via this NYT article are much
more revealing of your own bias than you might have preferred.
I posted a quote from it and all the links, first, under a neutral header.
Then Will made his observation, based on long experience in rmb with Diana's
tactics.
I agreed with him.
You pounced on me and now you challenge me to condemn the article.
If you ever bothered to read any of my posts, you would know how foolish you
made yourself look.
I commented on how well balanced I thought the article was.
Wake up and smell the coffee, John.
nowhere man
> I words, regardless of who they belong to, are most unnecessary. Why the
> > need for 'widow'? What's this about 'Widow Peaks'? Doesn't this sound
> > critical to you?
> >
> > The next line - "Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde." We
> > now know that the widow is Yoko. The tone in the rest of the line is
> > smuggy and critical to my ears anyway.
>
> Although the widow reference is annoying, "peaks" is hardly negative.
Hazel, there is no need at all for the widow reference in the title.
> It's actually very clever, and complimentary -- if it were "peaked," it
> would say that she is now past it. Instead, it says that she's now at a
> creative peak, that she's getting exposure and appreciation for her work.
> If only they didn't have to throw in the widow reference in order to make
> the clever pun ...
Yes, the widow reference is bitchy at best.
Will
John Whelan
"WAG" <franc...@excite.com> wrote in message news:8qlem5$2nu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8ql9ch$ff8$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca>,
> an...@freenet.carleton.ca (John Whelan) wrote:
> > Why don't
> > you write a letter to the "New York Times" and condemn
> > what they wrote? Are you up to the challenge??
> I commented on how well balanced I thought the article was.
>
> Wake up and smell the coffee, John.
>
> Francie
Then good, glad to here yet again reaffirm for
second time, your opinion on how "well balanced"
the article is! That concludes there is nothing
wrong with the article in the first place NOR IS
THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH DIANA FOR
posting the link, is there??
Like I said, Francie, you're nothing but a "bar
brat!" Ta, ta!
Regards,
John in Canada
John Whelan
>
> Hazel, there is no need at all for the widow reference in the title.
Yes, but have you READ THE ARTICLE YET??
Best Regards,
John
D 28IF
>> I'm sorry, I must be missing something.
>>
>> Did Diana post a NYT article headline and link? If so, how is that Diana
>being
>> negative towards Yoko?
>>
>>
>
>She didn't post the links.
>Have you read the article?
>
>This is Diana's favorite method of covering her own ass. Now she can say "Oh
>look! I posted a news article about Yoko without commenting! This * proves* I
>don't hate her!"
I haven't read it yet, but I thought others who have, said it was a positive
piece about Yoko.
And what conclusions are we to draw about articles you've posted here that put
Paul in a bad light?
It's ok for you to do to Paul, but no one else can do it to anyone other than
Paul. That your golden rule?
D 28IF
>
>As for apologies. Yes, Diana owes me a hell of a big one. But that's
>old news.
>
And you are a broken record with nothing new to say.
You still owe her an apology.
D 28IF
>
>And I posted the New York Times Magazine piece well before Diana. You just
>chose to ignore that.
So let me get this straight. You posted a NYT article about Yoko, and it was
good.
Diana posted the same article, probably not realising you had already done
this, and that was bad.
Explains a lot.
D 28IF
>
>I commented on how well balanced I thought the article was.
If this is the same one Diana posted, then why was her posting the article, as
well, a problem to you?
D 28IF
>> didn't make the headline up, rather, a "New York Times reporter"
>> coined it!
>
>and Diana happened to stumble on it and post it for us. How convenient.
Didn't see you bitching when Francie did the same thing.
You're slipping, Will.
D 28IF
>
>Hazel, there is no need at all for the widow reference in the title.
>
>
>Yes, the widow reference is bitchy at best.
>
Then complain to the NYT! What the hell is your problem, other than taking a
personal vendetta into a thread where it has no place, Will?
nowhere man
> "nowhere man" <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:39CE3B36...@lineone.net...
> >
> > Hazel, there is no need at all for the widow reference in the title.
>
> Yes, but have you READ THE ARTICLE YET??
HAVE YOU READ DIANA'S THREAD ON WHY SHE HATES YOKO?
WHY THE CONSTANT NEGATIVE FIXATION ON YOKO ONO?
Just because you don't like Francie, shouldn't blur the real picture here
John. This was just another article verging on the myth of the
professional widow which she wants to reinforce. It doesn't wash. As
Francie says, Diana's attitude is 'I don't hate Yoko, I just hate
everything she does'.
Will
WAG
There you go talking about yourself again. Why don't you find something else
to do beside pointing your bony finger at Will, 28?
At worst, he's suffering from Diana Fatigue, just as the rest of us
*sycophants* are.
WAG
Let me explain it to you on your own level, 28.
Read my header.
Read Diana's.
If you can't see the difference, I give up trying to explain it to you.
Francie
D 28IF
>Just because you don't like Francie, shouldn't blur the real picture here
>John. This was just another article verging on the myth of the
>professional widow which she wants to reinforce. It doesn't wash. As
>Francie says, Diana's attitude is 'I don't hate Yoko, I just hate
>everything she does'.
Will, you are truly posting as if you're out of your mind right now. You might
want to take a breath.
You're arguing about Diana posting an article. She didn't do any
editorialising. Just gave the article, including headlines and links.
You started something where there was no reason to, and now you're stuck. You
don't know how to get out of it. What was that you said to me about a rod in my
back? You've got one, apparently in another place.
nowhere man
> > "The Widow Peaks
> > Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde."
>
> > Are these Diana's words or those of the article...
> > who knows...you have to go along to the url and no
> > doubt register with the newspaper to see the article.
>
> > I words, regardless of who they belong to, are most
> > unnecessary. Why the need for 'widow'? What's this
> > about 'Widow Peaks'? Doesn't this sound critical
> > to you?
>
> The title isn't critical or derogatory in the least.
do we ever see such titles regarding Paul?
No, such titles allude to the professional widow and are negative in
their insinuation.
> It's not insult to call a widow a widow.
when have you heard others in the mainstream (say Sir Paul) being
labelled in the title of an article as a 'widow'.
> To say
> someone is at a peak is complimentary.
it insinuates in this instance that their past work was not of such a
high standard.
> The title is
> clever though tiresome in the use of "widow", but
> that's the sort of thing newspapers do.
yes, apparently so, when discussing Yoko.
> > The next line - "Yoko Ono gets her own moment in
> > a new avant-garde." We now know that the widow
> > is Yoko. The tone in the rest of the line is
> > smuggy and critical to my ears anyway.
>
> Those are some ears.
>
> > As for apologies. Yes, Diana owes me a hell of
> > a big one. But that's old news.
> >
> > Will
>
> The truth is (and I hope you realize it even if you
> can't admit it publicly) that your grudge against
> Diana is what caused your knee-jerk post. There was
> absolutely no hatred evident in Diana posting a
> balanced article about Yoko.
Let's cut to the chase. Diana hates Yoko. She enjoys Fred's posts.
She enjoys reading all of the anti-Yoko posters' pieces.
It is a very unhealthy fixation. I would rather she posted about her
favourite songs or perhaps more George Harrison material from her web
site...at least a bit of variation would be nice.
She won't apologise to me for what happened last year. The damage was
done at the time.
Will
nowhere man
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> WAG wrote:
> >
> > Registration is free, Laura. I would have thought
> > you would at least want to see the film footage
> > of John.
>
> Why don't you ask Will the same question? -laura
Laura, where do you stand on Diana's fixation on and hatred of Yoko?
nowhere man
actually, if you'll notice only yesterday when I told Francie that I regarded
that Heather Mills shit as highly offfensive.
I can call hatred from whatever quarter it comes. Can you?
d.
<william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
> > It's not insult to call a widow a widow.
>
> when have you heard others in the mainstream (say Sir Paul) being
> labelled in the title of an article as a 'widow'.
I have seen Paul called a "widower" (which is the male counterpart term). It's
*not* a derogatory word, Will. It's fact. Now calling either of them a
"professional widow" *is* derogatory, but the article didn't do this.
--
northcut at mindspring dot com
Three ornaments of wisdom: abundance of knowledge, a number of precedents,
to employ good counsel -the Triads of Ireland
nowhere man
> >From: nowhere man william_m...@lineone.net
>
> >Just because you don't like Francie, shouldn't blur the real picture here
> >John. This was just another article verging on the myth of the
> >professional widow which she wants to reinforce. It doesn't wash. As
> >Francie says, Diana's attitude is 'I don't hate Yoko, I just hate
> >everything she does'.
>
> Will, you are truly posting as if you're out of your mind right now. You might
> want to take a breath.
>
> You're arguing about Diana posting an article. She didn't do any
> editorialising. Just gave the article, including headlines and links.
why does she post articles on a woman she despises?
Is there nothing else for her to post on?
Is there no way to extinguish all the hatred that burns inside her heart? I bet
even John's family members aren't as consumed by this daily passion as Diana is.
Will
>
> You started something where there was no reason to, and now you're stuck. You
> don't know how to get out of it. What was that you said to me about a rod in my
> back? You've got one, apparently in another place.
why the rudeness? Just stick to the subject matter.
D 28IF
>
>D 28IF wrote:
>
>> >From: nowhere man william_m...@lineone.net
>>
>> >> didn't make the headline up, rather, a "New York Times reporter"
>> >> coined it!
>> >
>> >and Diana happened to stumble on it and post it for us. How convenient.
>>
>> Didn't see you bitching when Francie did the same thing.
>>
>> You're slipping, Will.
>
>actually, if you'll notice only yesterday when I told Francie that I regarded
>that Heather Mills shit as highly offfensive.
>
>I can call hatred from whatever quarter it comes. Can you?
Yup. I do and I have.
Still owe Diana an apology.
And I still didn't see you complain when Francie posted the same thing as
Diana.
nowhere man
> In article <39CE54FD...@lineone.net>, nowhere man
> <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>
> > when have you heard others in the mainstream (say Sir Paul) being
> > labelled in the title of an article as a 'widow'.
>
> I have seen Paul called a "widower" (which is the male counterpart term). It's
> *not* a derogatory word, Will. It's fact. Now calling either of them a
> "professional widow" *is* derogatory, but the article didn't do this.
dorothy, I appreciate what you are saying. However, I don't feel that there was
ANY need at all to refer to Yoko Ono, nearly 20 years after her husband's passing,
as a widow. To me that title came across as bitchy and most unnecessary.
I think in a wider context too, it is worth considering the number of times that
women are labelled widows as opposed to men being labelled similarly. Maybe it has
all to do with ageold discrimination...you know the woman can't do without the man
(who is the breadwinner, etc).
I just feel that the use of the word in this title is derogatory to Yoko.
D 28IF
>> You're arguing about Diana posting an article. She didn't do any
>> editorialising. Just gave the article, including headlines and links.
>
>why does she post articles on a woman she despises?
Will, since the first time I started posted here, several years ago, I have
seen Diana, as well as Jen. post all sorts of articles having to do with all
things Beatles-related. I used to do a lot of it myself, 'til I realised it was
getting redundant.
Am I to understand that you now deem it necessary that one may only post
articles having to do with things one personally approves of, or agrees with?
D 28IF
>> And you are a broken record with nothing new to say.
>>
>
>There you go talking about yourself again. Why don't you find something else
>to do beside pointing your bony finger at Will, 28?
>
>At worst, he's suffering from Diana Fatigue, just as the rest of us
>*sycophants* are.
>
>
And there you are, blindly jumping on a bandwagon with no understanding of
what's actually been said.
Diana posted an article. The same article, mind you, that you posted.
Will attacked Diana for writing a negative line about Yoko, which in reality
was nothing more than the headline written in the NYT.
Instead of apologising to Diana for jumping the gun and thinking she'd written
the words he found offensive, Will is vainly trying to turn this into a "Diana
hates Yoko" thread, which has absolutely nothing to do with how the thread
started.
And you, Francie, obviously have nothing new to add, or you're afraid to
publicly correct your friend, so you add onto an argument that was actually
started by Will, not Diana.
D 28IF
>If you can't see the difference, I give up trying to explain it to you.
I see the difference. Bottom line, you both posted the same thing. Will jumped
the gun on Diana, and you took the opportunity to lash out at a favourite
target.
Bored much?
D 28IF
>
>I just feel that the use of the word in this title is derogatory to Yoko.
>
Will, I would have absolutely no argument with you there. That's your opinion
and your take on the word "widow."
But the sad fact is, you attacked Diana for posting something she didn't even
write.
You bitch a lot about an apology you think she owes you. Shame you can't be
just as big as you want her to be, and post the apology you so obviously owe to
Diana.
huzzlewhat
<william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
> John Whelan wrote:
>
> > The article is well-written and it is "balanced" in it's report.
>
> why did Diana only post the title then? The title was it seems the most
> unbalanced part of the article.
Are we talking about different things here? As it appears on my server,
Diana's post includes the entire article. She didn't even bow to the
temptation to use "The Widow Peaks" as the subject line of the thread,
instead using the sub line to call attention to the fact that Yoko has an
exhibit at the Japan Society -- this is *far* from expressing hatred.
> > Diana didn't make the headline up, rather, a "New York Times reporter"
> > coined it!
>
> and Diana happened to stumble on it and post it for us. How convenient.
It was very nice of Diana to post the article here. Just as it was nice
of Francie to do it, when she posted excerpts from the same article.
Diana posted the headline and the article with no editorializing. I
really don't see what the problem is. Especially given the tone of the
article, which is *generally* positive.
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."
huzzlewhat
<william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
> huzzlewhat wrote:
>
> > I words, regardless of who they belong to, are most unnecessary. Why the
>
> > > need for 'widow'? What's this about 'Widow Peaks'? Doesn't this sound
> > > critical to you?
> > >
> > > The next line - "Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde." We
> > > now know that the widow is Yoko. The tone in the rest of the line is
> > > smuggy and critical to my ears anyway.
> >
> > Although the widow reference is annoying, "peaks" is hardly negative.
>
> Hazel, there is no need at all for the widow reference in the title.
Agreed. But how does that relate to Diana?
> > It's actually very clever, and complimentary -- if it were "peaked," it
> > would say that she is now past it. Instead, it says that she's now at a
> > creative peak, that she's getting exposure and appreciation for her work.
> > If only they didn't have to throw in the widow reference in order to make
> > the clever pun ...
>
> Yes, the widow reference is bitchy at best.
Well, we agree that it's a bad headline. But this is all sort of straying
from the point. You said above, "the words, regardless of who they belong
to . . ." But isn't that the point? If you're going to accuse Diana of
expressing hatred with those words, it's *extremely* relevant whose those
words belong to.
Glitterstim Rage
>article without being accused of hatred?
Keep posting what you want, Diana. Tell that politically correct storm trooper
to go fuck herself.
WAG
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
>
>
> You bitch a lot about an apology you think she owes you. Shame you can't be
> just as big as you want her to be, and post the apology you so obviously owe to
> Diana.
>
>
And you are just a bitch. Period. Lay off!
I hope Will ignores your mean-spirited attacks on his manners and your total
disrespect toward his experience in this newsgroup.
Glitterstim Rage
Francie, why do you give a shit about what another RMB poster says?
Glitterstim Rage
Why the fixation on what another poster writes? Yoko's sycophants have a "kill
the messenger, not the message" mentality.
Lizz Holmans
a...@lineone.net> writes
>
>do we ever see such titles regarding Paul?
This is irrelevant to the issue, Will.
>
>No, such titles allude to the professional widow and are negative in
>their insinuation.
Some New York Times sub-editor wrote that headline, Will. Diana didn't.
>
>
>
>when have you heard others in the mainstream (say Sir Paul) being
>labelled in the title of an article as a 'widow'.
The usual term is 'widower'. And, since Linda died, I can't remember a
single article about Paul McCartney that *doesn't* mention that he is a
widower.
>
>it insinuates in this instance that their past work was not of such a
>high standard.
It states that a person's work is now at its highest point. Of course
that means one's work wasn't as good as it is at its peak. This is
hardly a negative statement to make, merely a factual one.
>
>yes, apparently so, when discussing Yoko.
Not only Yoko, Will. Newspapers, especially British newspapers, love a
cute headline. It makes people want to read the story. That's what
headlines are for.
>
>
>
>
>> > The next line - "Yoko Ono gets her own moment in
>> > a new avant-garde." We now know that the widow
>> > is Yoko. The tone in the rest of the line is
>> > smuggy and critical to my ears anyway.
Re-read the phrase. '...a *new* avant-garde.' It is mentioning at the
beginning of the story that Yoko Ono's work is being singled out by
newer, younger artists as worth something.
You may not like the way its written. That's certainly your privilege.
But to my more neutral eyes it simply looks like a statement of truth.
>
>Let's cut to the chase. Diana hates Yoko. She enjoys Fred's posts.
>She enjoys reading all of the anti-Yoko posters' pieces.
>
>It is a very unhealthy fixation. I would rather she posted about her
>favourite songs or perhaps more George Harrison material from her web
>site...at least a bit of variation would be nice.
Will, your frequent posts about this issue do not help to resolve the
issue, you know. It gets up peoples' noses--mine included. Why don't you
post some variation?
>
>She won't apologise to me for what happened last year. The damage was
>done at the time.
You may not ever get the sort of apology you think you want (I'm not
qualified to say whether you need it or not. I've forgotten the whole
issue, as I suspect most folks on this newsgroup have). What is the very
worst thing you can think of that will happen to you if you don't get
it?
Not much, Will. Not much.
As I've said to others in the past, I say again: Come down from the
cross, son. We need the wood.
Lizz 'Now, how about those OlymH^H^H^H^HBeatles?' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Susan
>along to the url and no doubt register
>with the newspaper to see the article.
Before becoming so hostile you should check.
>I words, regardless of who they belong
>to, are most unnecessary. Why the need
>for 'widow'? What's this about 'Widow
>Peaks'? Doesn't this sound critical to
>you?
No. Is *widow* a bad word in Ireland?
>The next line - "Yoko Ono gets her own
> moment in a new avant-garde." We now
>know that the widow is Yoko. The tone in
>the rest of the line is smuggy and critical
>to my ears anyway.
You Yo worshippers are out of control. You and Fabby need to up your
med doses. There is nothing offensive about that line. It has gotten
to the point that if Yo's name is even mentioned you two go postal.
You two are paranoid.
Susan
>Diana's the one with the mantra, which
>goes something like this:
>I don't hate Yoko, just everything she
>does.
>John's uncle's house, John's family's
>homes, Julian's rightful inheritance,
>Douglas's civil suit (it's a crime!), John's
>wanting to be with Paul (she prevented
>it), and blahblahblah.
Wow, all that from a New York Times header. Your obvious hate for Diana
is coming through loud and clear. You are now attacking her for no
reason at all, you are one screwed up miserable old groupie.
nowhere man
> In article <39CE54FD...@lineone.net>, nowhere man <william_mulholl
> a...@lineone.net> writes
> >
> >do we ever see such titles regarding Paul?
>
> This is irrelevant to the issue, Will.
why is it irrelevant Lizz? If the title is derogatory, then wouldn't it be
best to discuss it?
> >No, such titles allude to the professional widow and are negative in
> >their insinuation.
>
> Some New York Times sub-editor wrote that headline, Will. Diana didn't.
yes, and Diana posted it. I did not see Francie's earlier post.
> >when have you heard others in the mainstream (say Sir Paul) being
> >labelled in the title of an article as a 'widow'.
>
> The usual term is 'widower'. And, since Linda died, I can't remember a
> single article about Paul McCartney that *doesn't* mention that he is a
> widower.
>
> >
> >it insinuates in this instance that their past work was not of such a
> >high standard.
>
> It states that a person's work is now at its highest point. Of course
> that means one's work wasn't as good as it is at its peak. This is
> hardly a negative statement to make, merely a factual one.
how can you describe such a statement as being 'factual'? Since when has
art been 'factual'?
>
>
> >
> >yes, apparently so, when discussing Yoko.
>
> Not only Yoko, Will. Newspapers, especially British newspapers, love a
> cute headline. It makes people want to read the story. That's what
> headlines are for.
of course, but how many headlines include the title 'widower Paul'?
> You may not like the way its written. That's certainly your privilege.
> But to my more neutral eyes it simply looks like a statement of truth.
Diana has a long history of posting anti-Yoko material. Ian called her on
it big-time a year or two ago.
For the record Lizz, where do you stand on all this anti-Yoko stuff? When
Fred for example alleged that she was involved in some conspiracy regarding
John...where were you?
Where do you stand on these issues?
Do you reckon Yoko gets a fair deal?
> >Let's cut to the chase. Diana hates Yoko. She enjoys Fred's posts.
> >She enjoys reading all of the anti-Yoko posters' pieces.
> >
> >It is a very unhealthy fixation. I would rather she posted about her
> >favourite songs or perhaps more George Harrison material from her web
> >site...at least a bit of variation would be nice.
>
> Will, your frequent posts about this issue do not help to resolve the
> issue, you know. It gets up peoples' noses--mine included. Why don't you
> post some variation?
let's be honest Lizz, everything gets up your nose. If a dog sniffed your
shoe you'd find offense.
> >She won't apologise to me for what happened last year. The damage was
> >done at the time.
>
> You may not ever get the sort of apology you think you want (I'm not
> qualified to say whether you need it or not.
Lizz, if you are not qualified to discuss it then why did bring it up?
> I've forgotten the whole
> issue, as I suspect most folks on this newsgroup have).
if you have forgotten/don't know the issue is, then how do you determine
what others have done?
> What is the very
> worst thing you can think of that will happen to you if you don't get
> it?
>
> Not much, Will. Not much.
>
> As I've said to others in the past, I say again: Come down from the
> cross, son. We need the wood.
Okay if that's the way you want to go, sobeit. Lizz, as I have yearned to
say to you so many times........why always the 'I know better/snotty
attitude'? It hinders your ability to interact in a reasoned debate. (if
you want to go personal, then sobeit)
Will
huzzlewhat
> lstoll wrote:
>
> > > "The Widow Peaks
> > > Yoko Ono gets her own moment in a new avant-garde."
> >
> > > Are these Diana's words or those of the article...
> > > who knows...you have to go along to the url and no
> > > doubt register with the newspaper to see the article.
> >
> > > I words, regardless of who they belong to, are most
> > > unnecessary. Why the need for 'widow'? What's this
> > > about 'Widow Peaks'? Doesn't this sound critical
> > > to you?
> >
> > The title isn't critical or derogatory in the least.
>
> do we ever see such titles regarding Paul?
>
> No, such titles allude to the professional widow and are negative in
> their insinuation.
Will, I agree with you that "widow" was unecessary. But I don't see it as
an allusion to the mean-spirited "professional widow" tag -- especially in
light of the tone of the article, which was very nice. The headline and
the deck work together. Think about it this way. For most of the world,
Yoko Ono is known primarily as John Lennon's widow. Regardless of
negative or positive feelings, that's the primary association for the
majority of the public. Then, this is followed by . . . "Yoko Ono gets
her own moment..." Her *own* moment. Implying . . . separate from John.
The new avant garde, a new collection of fans and enthusiasts, a new
peak. Taken out of context, yes, "widow" seems to be unnecessary. But in
the context of the headline and deck, it isn't offensive.
A good parallel to the way this headline works would be the Time headline
for McCartney's 1976 tour. "A Beatle Takes Flight" Probably annoying to
be still referred to as a Beatle. But the headline also showed transition
-- between what the subject was known best for, and the apparent escape
into his own identity.
> > It's not insult to call a widow a widow.
>
> when have you heard others in the mainstream (say Sir Paul) being
> labelled in the title of an article as a 'widow'.
Probably because there's not a clever play on words to be made with
"Widower," the way there is with Widow's Peak. If there were such
wordplay to be made, undoubtedly we'd have seen it by now. Not an article
about Paul hits print without mentioning Linda's death.
> > To say
> > someone is at a peak is complimentary.
>
> it insinuates in this instance that their past work was not of such a
> high standard.
To say someone is at a high point is an insult? Man oh man . . . if I got
my panties in a bunch every time a journalist *dared* to suggest that Paul
McCartney's career hasn't been one unbroken series of high points, or that
he's been held in universally high regard all the days of his life . . .
I'm sorry, Will, I'm not ridiculing you, I just find this funny! ;-)
> Let's cut to the chase. Diana hates Yoko. She enjoys Fred's posts.
> She enjoys reading all of the anti-Yoko posters' pieces.
But how does Diana posting this article show hatred of Yoko? There's
nothing offensive in Diana's header, "Yoko Exhibit at Japan Society (New
York)" She posted the entire article, with byline, headline, and link.
She made no extraneous comments or remarks to indicate her opinion.
There's nothing in her post at all that shows "hatred," as you perceive
it, toward its subject. I simply fail to see anything malicious about her
actions here.
nowhere man
> In article <39CE54FD...@lineone.net>, nowhere man
> <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> > No, such titles allude to the professional widow and are negative in
> > their insinuation.
>
> Will, I agree with you that "widow" was unecessary. But I don't see it as
> an allusion to the mean-spirited "professional widow" tag
we differ on that Hazel.
> Think about it this way. For most of the world,
> Yoko Ono is known primarily as John Lennon's widow. Regardless of
> negative or positive feelings, that's the primary association for the
> majority of the public.
true, she is known primarily as John's widow. I agree to that point.
However, she doesn't need that association to be recognised by the public at
large. The very word Yoko when mentioned in the western world refers to only
one person.....yes, Yoko Ono. Regardless of where you are or who you speak
to (i.e. adults) just about everyone knows who Yoko Ono is. The association
isn't necessary and I would imagine does at times annoy Yoko.
> Then, this is followed by . . . "Yoko Ono gets
> her own moment..." Her *own* moment. Implying . . . separate from John.
but didn't Yoko have plenty of her own 'moments' before now? She must be near
pensionage. Surely the best of her work is behind her.
> The new avant garde, a new collection of fans and enthusiasts, a new
> peak. Taken out of context, yes, "widow" seems to be unnecessary. But in
> the context of the headline and deck, it isn't offensive.
we'll agree to disagree. :3)
> A good parallel to the way this headline works would be the Time headline
> for McCartney's 1976 tour. "A Beatle Takes Flight" Probably annoying to
> be still referred to as a Beatle. But the headline also showed transition
> -- between what the subject was known best for, and the apparent escape
> into his own identity.
fair point...but you have also raised my very next point. When does the
association get left behind? John is dead nearly 20 years. Surely, the
reference is no longer appropriate.
> > > It's not insult to call a widow a widow.
> >
> > when have you heard others in the mainstream (say Sir Paul) being
> > labelled in the title of an article as a 'widow'.
>
> Probably because there's not a clever play on words to be made with
> "Widower," the way there is with Widow's Peak. If there were such
> wordplay to be made, undoubtedly we'd have seen it by now. Not an article
> about Paul hits print without mentioning Linda's death.
will Paul have an article in 20 years time with his name in the title along
with 'widower'?
You and I both know the answer.
> > > To say
> > > someone is at a peak is complimentary.
> >
> > it insinuates in this instance that their past work was not of such a
> > high standard.
>
> To say someone is at a high point is an insult?
Hazel, you know only too well that often 'praise' comes with a dig.
> > Let's cut to the chase. Diana hates Yoko. She enjoys Fred's posts.
> > She enjoys reading all of the anti-Yoko posters' pieces.
>
> But how does Diana posting this article show hatred of Yoko? There's
> nothing offensive in Diana's header, "Yoko Exhibit at Japan Society (New
> York)" She posted the entire article, with byline, headline, and link.
> She made no extraneous comments or remarks to indicate her opinion.
> There's nothing in her post at all that shows "hatred," as you perceive
> it, toward its subject. I simply fail to see anything malicious about her
> actions here.
fair points. Okay, let's look at the bigger picture. Diana makes no secret
of her disdain for Yoko Ono. It is well documented. She has been called on
it on numerous occasions. I just don't see why she won't let the subject
matter lie. We ALL know her views on this issue by now. I just get fatigued
at having to see thread after thread on peoples' hatred of Yoko. If I get
trigger happy, then you'll have to give me some leeway.......but when it comes
to giving the benefit of the doubt to someone with such a negative fixation
then forgive me, but I don't.
Will
Lizz Holmans
a...@lineone.net> writes
>why is it irrelevant Lizz? If the title is derogatory, then wouldn't it be
>best to discuss it?
'Widow' and 'widower' are not generally considered derogatory terms.
That's a fact.
>
>yes, and Diana posted it. I did not see Francie's earlier post.
Yes, she posted it. It was part of the on-line article.
>>
>> It states that a person's work is now at its highest point. Of course
>> that means one's work wasn't as good as it is at its peak. This is
>> hardly a negative statement to make, merely a factual one.
>
>how can you describe such a statement as being 'factual'? Since when has
>art been 'factual'?
When a person has reached a peak it is a necessity that they have not
been at that peak before. When used in a non-literal sense, it's called
a metaphor.
>
>of course, but how many headlines include the title 'widower Paul'?
Probably not as many, because 'Widower' is a longer word, and also not
as commonly used (headline writers like to keep things short and
simple). But it's *still* not a malicious word; nor is 'widow.'
>
>Diana has a long history of posting anti-Yoko material. Ian called her on
>it big-time a year or two ago.
I know. I've been here on RMB a long time.
>
>For the record Lizz, where do you stand on all this anti-Yoko stuff? When
>Fred for example alleged that she was involved in some conspiracy regarding
>John...where were you?
>
>Where do you stand on these issues?
>
>Do you reckon Yoko gets a fair deal?
I refer you to my continuing dialogue with
NyarwhosnameIcanneverremember.
>let's be honest Lizz, everything gets up your nose. If a dog sniffed your
>shoe you'd find offense.
You know me well enough to know what annoys me but you don't know me
well enough to know my often-posted opinions about the Yoko
controversies?
>
>Lizz, if you are not qualified to discuss it then why did bring it up?
Because you seem to think it's so important.
>
>
>
>> I've forgotten the whole
>> issue, as I suspect most folks on this newsgroup have).
>
>if you have forgotten/don't know the issue is, then how do you determine
>what others have done?
I don't, Will. I'm listening to what you're saying in the last day.
You've dwelt on this issue a lot.
>Okay if that's the way you want to go, sobeit. Lizz, as I have yearned to
>say to you so many times........why always the 'I know better/snotty
>attitude'? It hinders your ability to interact in a reasoned debate. (if
>you want to go personal, then sobeit)
I'm sorry you perceive my posts that way. I do like precision in
posting, especially when making the distinction between fact and
opinion. I prefer not to waste words. I think words should be used
gracefully and with great aforethought. They are tender things that
should not be misused.
But I am not going to attack you personally, Will. I don't generally do
that. It's not my style. I argue the argument, not the arguer. At least,
that's what I try to do. I don't always succeed. But I fancy that if you
ask around you'll find that folks who've read my posts have noticed that
the old ad hom is not my favorite logical fallacy.
Lizz 'There are so many others to choose from' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
jumpin' bean
"D 28IF" <d2...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000924150623...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
> >From: WAG franc...@excite.com
>
> >
> >I commented on how well balanced I thought the article was.
>
> If this is the same one Diana posted, then why was her posting the
article, as
> well, a problem to you?
You are still making the mistake of demanding consistency and honesty from a
crazy person.
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
jumpin' bean
"Capt.Vegemite" <ni...@nickoff.com ..> wrote in message
news:newscache$pnxd1g$cx6$1...@news.accsoft.com.au...
>
> "jumpin' bean" <jum...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
> news:39cd...@post.usenet.com...
> >
> > TWO OBSERVATIONS:
> >
> > Is this mad woman still howling and shrieking as a form of music? Some
> > things never change do they?
>
> gee when are you gonna start calloig her a little nip again jumpin bean?
What of it ya politically correct twit
jumpin' bean
"Capt.Vegemite" <ni...@nickoff.com ..> wrote in message
news:newscache$173f1g$1ai$1...@news.accsoft.com.au...
>
> "jumpin' bean" <jum...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
> news:39ce...@post.usenet.com...
> > >
> > > gee when are you gonna start calloig her a little nip again jumpin
bean?
> >
> > What of it ya politically correct twit
> >
>
> it just proves you're a racist, that's what.
Only a moron like you would refer to my calling her a nip as racist. I
called her a nip in the context of remarking about the stereotype of the
inscrutable Oriental. Are you the new censor for this newsgroup?
If so, you are an ignorant one.
jumpin' bean
"Capt.Vegemite" <ni...@nickoff.com ..> wrote in message
news:newscache$0r3f1g$nqm$1...@news.accsoft.com.au...
>
> "jumpin' bean" <jum...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
> news:39ce...@post.usenet.com...
>
> >
> > Only a moron like you would refer to my calling her a nip as racist.
> >I called her a nip in the context of remarking about the stereotype of
the
> > inscrutable Oriental.
>
> save your breath asshole.
>
> no amount of squirming or spin doctoring is going to change the fact
you're
> a racist jerk.
Yeah right! LOL!
Your attempt at censorship is exceedingly lame. Go try your silly shuck and
jive on someone else.
John Whelan
news:39CE8436...@lineone.net...
The problem we have with this, Will, is what is called
the old double-standard. On one hand, Francie first posts
the article. Then Diana posts the same article (probably
without realizing it's already been posted, I suspect, I've
seen that happen here on occasion at Rmb from various
contributors) and decides to use N.Y. Times the sub-line
header to draw attention to the article. Francie gets
all upset over this and "impulsively decides" to go after
Diana by proclaiming Diana's post is nothing more than
Yoko bashing. Ahem, excuse me?? Reality check...let's
have a reality check here! The *real reason* for Francie
being so upset is the fact that Diana posted the link here
just shortly after her, and it's nothing more than that Will.
I suppose Francie feels she should receive all the accolade
with attention from the Rmb group for first discovering it.
This is what she wants and nothing more, o.k.? (After
all, Francie did ask the group to "Enjoy!" and "Discuss!"
the N.Y. Times report she posted). Thus, in this instance,
her reaction towards Diana has very little to do with
"protecting the image of Yoko" (it probably has more to
do with "sibling rivalry on her part"). In fact, Francie
herself not only provided a "cut-and-paste snippet" of
the article, but she even provided the "direct link" to read
for ANY ONE to REVIEW the COMPLETE REPORT,
which, I might add, has the small section covering the
break-up of the Beatles with Yoko being cited.
With all the hoopla and fuss that Francie made over this
Yoko bashing by all the dissenters, et al., I'm surprised
she didn't "protect Yoko's image" in her own post,
if this is what she "truly wanted to do", by simply retaining
her on-line quote from the N.Y. Times and by "deleting the
direct link" back to the Times website in order to avoid the
papers "negative connotations" or, shall we say, their
journalist spin that the Times wrote regarding the break-up
of the Beatles.
Francie didn't do that, hence the double-standard, and
the ruthless attack on Diana as a result of it.
The only person in this instance who is truly "victimizing"
and "villainizing themselves" here on Rmb is Francie.
Francie's "smoke-and-mirrors game" is nothing more than
"bar brat" tactics on Rmb.
Best Regards,
John in Canada
John Whelan
>
> It was me yesterday who had a go at Francie over offensive remarks regarding
Heather
> Mills.
>
> Best,
>
> Will
Well then shall the two of you "put a lid on all this"
and discuss Yoko's art show instead, re: Subject
header "Yoko exhibit at Japan Society (New York
City) and, ahem, Amen!
Cheers!
John in Canada
huzzlewhat
<william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
> huzzlewhat wrote:
>
> > In article <39CE54FD...@lineone.net>, nowhere man
> > <william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
> >
> > > No, such titles allude to the professional widow and are negative in
> > > their insinuation.
> >
> > Will, I agree with you that "widow" was unecessary. But I don't see it as
> > an allusion to the mean-spirited "professional widow" tag
>
> we differ on that Hazel.
Then we'll just have to differ. I honestly think you're reading into it.
"Widow" is a factual description of Yoko's marital state.
> > Think about it this way. For most of the world,
> > Yoko Ono is known primarily as John Lennon's widow. Regardless of
> > negative or positive feelings, that's the primary association for the
> > majority of the public.
>
> true, she is known primarily as John's widow. I agree to that point.
>
> However, she doesn't need that association to be recognised by the public at
> large. The very word Yoko when mentioned in the western world refers to only
> one person.....yes, Yoko Ono. Regardless of where you are or who you speak
> to (i.e. adults) just about everyone knows who Yoko Ono is. The association
> isn't necessary and I would imagine does at times annoy Yoko.
So -- annoying. Perhaps. But she *is* a widow, and the association is
there with the public at large. She's John Lennon's widow -- which is how
most people in the world would identify her, if asked who she was.
Everyone gets tarred by the Beatles brush; Francie herself has complained
of that in the past -- that Yoko cannot escape the association. Check out
the Romanian Angel appeal that Olivia Harrison organized -- in press
reports, she's identified as the wife of ex-Beatle George Harrison. There
you've got *two* instances of it in one phrase -- Olivia is identified as
George's wife, and George is identified by the group. It's natural. And
it's factual.
> > Then, this is followed by . . . "Yoko Ono gets
> > her own moment..." Her *own* moment. Implying . . . separate from John.
>
> but didn't Yoko have plenty of her own 'moments' before now? She must be near
> pensionage. Surely the best of her work is behind her.
That's not what the article is saying -- and why it's complimentary.
She's in a new phase, she's reaching a new audience, she's still creating
vital art. Please, Will, read the article.
> > A good parallel to the way this headline works would be the Time headline
> > for McCartney's 1976 tour. "A Beatle Takes Flight" Probably annoying to
> > be still referred to as a Beatle. But the headline also showed transition
> > -- between what the subject was known best for, and the apparent escape
> > into his own identity.
>
> fair point...but you have also raised my very next point. When does the
> association get left behind? John is dead nearly 20 years. Surely, the
> reference is no longer appropriate.
But it's still true. She hasn't married anyone else. She's still John's
widow. And after 30 years, the ex-Beatles are still identified as such --
even those who'd rather not be.
> > > > It's not insult to call a widow a widow.
> > >
> > > when have you heard others in the mainstream (say Sir Paul) being
> > > labelled in the title of an article as a 'widow'.
> >
> > Probably because there's not a clever play on words to be made with
> > "Widower," the way there is with Widow's Peak. If there were such
> > wordplay to be made, undoubtedly we'd have seen it by now. Not an article
> > about Paul hits print without mentioning Linda's death.
>
> will Paul have an article in 20 years time with his name in the title along
> with 'widower'?
>
> You and I both know the answer.
Will they still be mentioning Linda, and her premature death? Of course
they will. But it is also true that Paul McCartney is primarily known to
the public at large as ex-Beatle Paul McCartney, not as Linda McCartney's
widower. If Linda had outlived Paul, she would have been identified as his
widow until the day she died. If John had outlived Yoko, he would have
continued to be identified in the mass media as ex-Beatle John Lennon, not
as Yoko's widower. It's a simple case of how they're known by the largest
mass of people out there.
> > > > To say
> > > > someone is at a peak is complimentary.
> > >
> > > it insinuates in this instance that their past work was not of such a
> > > high standard.
> >
> > To say someone is at a high point is an insult?
>
> Hazel, you know only too well that often 'praise' comes with a dig.
Yes, I know that. As you know, I'm a Paul fan -- and you can't read as
many articles about Paul McCartney as I have and *not* know that praise
often comes with snide digs. But you have to read the article to
understand what the author is saying. She's at a creative peak. Hey,
John called Sgt. Pepper a peak. That doesn't mean that the Beatles didn't
do amazing work before, or after. It's just a high point in someone's
creative history -- it doesn't mean it's the only such high point. I
think you're being paranoid about how it reads, and it's hard to discuss
it when you haven't read the article, and are only judging it based on the
headline and the deck.
> > > Let's cut to the chase. Diana hates Yoko. She enjoys Fred's posts.
> > > She enjoys reading all of the anti-Yoko posters' pieces.
> >
> > But how does Diana posting this article show hatred of Yoko? There's
> > nothing offensive in Diana's header, "Yoko Exhibit at Japan Society (New
> > York)" She posted the entire article, with byline, headline, and link.
> > She made no extraneous comments or remarks to indicate her opinion.
> > There's nothing in her post at all that shows "hatred," as you perceive
> > it, toward its subject. I simply fail to see anything malicious about her
> > actions here.
>
> fair points. Okay, let's look at the bigger picture. Diana makes no secret
> of her disdain for Yoko Ono. It is well documented. She has been called on
> it on numerous occasions. I just don't see why she won't let the subject
> matter lie. We ALL know her views on this issue by now. I just get fatigued
> at having to see thread after thread on peoples' hatred of Yoko. If I get
> trigger happy, then you'll have to give me some leeway.......but when it comes
> to giving the benefit of the doubt to someone with such a negative fixation
> then forgive me, but I don't.
But how did posting that article show hatred? Diana has posted about Yoko
a lot, yes, but she has also posted a lot on other topics. As far as her
Yoko-related posts go, some are negative and yes, whether you believe it
or not, some are positive -- especially about Yoko's artwork. Sure you're
tired of the Yoko bashing that goes on here. But Diana's post was not
simply not even remotely close to bashing, it in no way showed *any*
negativity on Diana's part toward Yoko. I'm sorry, but there's no doubt
here to give benefit to -- there was nothing in the post that was even
Diana's own opinion, to doubt or accept. What I've observed has been a
series of accusations about Diana's behavior in this thread which have
been consistently and thoroughly off base. It was first claimed that the
"widow's peak" was hers, which it wasn't. It was claimed that she only
posted the negative headline, when she posted the entire article. It was
claimed that she posted under an offensive thread title, which she didn't.
All of these accusations have been just plain wrong, and shown to be
wrong.
John Whelan
> >From: nowhere man william_m...@lineone.net
>
> >
> >I step forward. It was me, not Francie, who attacked Diana for the post.
>
>
> And the point you two have yet to face is that you're each now arguing things
> that have nothing to do with what Diana did.
>
> You've taken this thread off into debating if "widow" has a negative
> connotation. As well as going on about Diana hating Yoko when she did, in fact,
> did the same thing Francie did.
>
> And Francie has taken this thread off into a direction debating how Martin
> Luther King was an ex-slave (??) and how her Jewishness means she can
> authoritatively speak about Elie Weisel.
And so, D 28IF, based on your summation of the
events from the posters, Francie and Will, what, pray
tell, oh wise one, have *their remarks* suppose to do
with Yoko Ono's art exhibit at the Japan Society in
New York??? ;-)
Best Wishes,
John
d.
<william_m...@lineone.net> wrote:
> and here's another thing..............why the hauty/snobbish always changing
> signature line?
That's an old Usenet tradition, Will, more common in some newsgroups than
others. Go check out alt.folklore.urban - nearly everyone there does it.
--
northcut at mindspring dot com
Three ornaments of wisdom: abundance of knowledge, a number of precedents,
to employ good counsel -the Triads of Ireland
nowhere man
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> WAG wrote:
> >
> > Registration is free, Laura. I would have thought
> > you would at least want to see the film footage
> > of John.
>
> Why don't you ask Will the same question? -laura
Laura, where do you stand on Diana's fixation on and hatred of Yoko?
Capt.Vegemite
"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ls46WDAp$lz5...@jackalope.demon.co.uk...
> In article <39CE54FD...@lineone.net>, nowhere man <william_mulholl
> a...@lineone.net> writes
> >
> >do we ever see such titles regarding Paul?
>
um, "to the issue" is actually redundant.
just a pet peeve of mine...sorry, now please carry on......:)
nowhere man
> In article <39CE7339...@lineone.net>, nowhere man <william_mulholl
> a...@lineone.net> writes
> >why is it irrelevant Lizz? If the title is derogatory, then wouldn't it be
> >best to discuss it?
>
> 'Widow' and 'widower' are not generally considered derogatory terms.
> That's a fact.
so you wouldn't object to being labelled a widow twenty years later?
No such thing as a professional widow?
> >> It states that a person's work is now at its highest point. Of course
> >> that means one's work wasn't as good as it is at its peak. This is
> >> hardly a negative statement to make, merely a factual one.
> >
> >how can you describe such a statement as being 'factual'? Since when has
> >art been 'factual'?
>
> When a person has reached a peak it is a necessity that they have not
> been at that peak before. When used in a non-literal sense, it's called
> a metaphor.
but you said it was a fact? If I say the Beatles peaked in 68.....is that a
fact? Of course not.
> >of course, but how many headlines include the title 'widower Paul'?
>
> Probably not as many, because 'Widower' is a longer word, and also not
> as commonly used (headline writers like to keep things short and
> simple). But it's *still* not a malicious word; nor is 'widow.'
it seems to get hinged onto Yoko Ono quite a bit.
> >Diana has a long history of posting anti-Yoko material. Ian called her on
> >it big-time a year or two ago.
>
> I know. I've been here on RMB a long time.
we agree on something then :3)
> >For the record Lizz, where do you stand on all this anti-Yoko stuff? When
> >Fred for example alleged that she was involved in some conspiracy regarding
> >John...where were you?
> >
> >Where do you stand on these issues?
> >
> >Do you reckon Yoko gets a fair deal?
>
> I refer you to my continuing dialogue with
> NyarwhosnameIcanneverremember.
lol oh you mean Nylon.
> >let's be honest Lizz, everything gets up your nose. If a dog sniffed your
> >shoe you'd find offense.
>
> You know me well enough to know what annoys me but you don't know me
> well enough to know my often-posted opinions about the Yoko
> controversies?
apart from the Nylon thread of recent, I don't recall you taking part in any of
the anti-Yoko threads.
> >Okay if that's the way you want to go, sobeit. Lizz, as I have yearned to
> >say to you so many times........why always the 'I know better/snotty
> >attitude'? It hinders your ability to interact in a reasoned debate. (if
> >you want to go personal, then sobeit)
>
> I'm sorry you perceive my posts that way.
REPOST:
>> Come down from the cross, son. We need the wood.
I perceived the above as a personal attack. There was nothing in it of any
relevance to the thread.
> I do like precision in
> posting, especially when making the distinction between fact and
> opinion.
subjective versus objective...I'm with you all the way.
> I prefer not to waste words. I think words should be used
> gracefully and with great aforethought. They are tender things that
> should not be misused.
then why the above personal abuse?
> But I am not going to attack you personally, Will.
but Lizz YOU DID
Will
Capt.Vegemite
"jumpin' bean" <jum...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
news:39ce...@post.usenet.com...
> >
Capt.Vegemite
"jumpin' bean" <jum...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
news:39ce...@post.usenet.com...
>
Capt.Vegemite
"jumpin' bean" <jum...@SoftHome.net> wrote in message
news:39ce...@post.usenet.com...
>
>
> "Capt.Vegemite" <ni...@nickoff.com ..> wrote in message
> news:newscache$0r3f1g$nqm$1...@news.accsoft.com.au...
> >
keep laughing matey........;)
> Your attempt at censorship is exceedingly lame.
no one is censoring you.
i just commented on your racist post.
that's all.
nowhere man
> The problem we have with this, Will, is what is called
> the old double-standard. On one hand, Francie first posts
> the article. Then Diana posts the same article (probably
> without realizing it's already been posted, I suspect, I've
> seen that happen here on occasion at Rmb from various
> contributors) and decides to use N.Y. Times the sub-line
> header to draw attention to the article. Francie gets
> all upset over this and "impulsively decides" to go after
> Diana by proclaiming Diana's post is nothing more than
> Yoko bashing. Ahem, excuse me??
John, I was the one who got upset.
> Reality check...let's
> have a reality check here! The *real reason* for Francie
> being so upset is the fact that Diana posted the link here
> just shortly after her, and it's nothing more than that Will.
> I suppose Francie feels she should receive all the accolade
> with attention from the Rmb group for first discovering it.
> This is what she wants and nothing more, o.k.? (After
> all, Francie did ask the group to "Enjoy!" and "Discuss!"
> the N.Y. Times report she posted). Thus, in this instance,
> her reaction towards Diana has very little to do with
> "protecting the image of Yoko" (it probably has more to
> do with "sibling rivalry on her part"). In fact, Francie
> herself not only provided a "cut-and-paste snippet" of
> the article, but she even provided the "direct link" to read
> for ANY ONE to REVIEW the COMPLETE REPORT,
> which, I might add, has the small section covering the
> break-up of the Beatles with Yoko being cited.
>
> With all the hoopla and fuss that Francie made over this
> Yoko bashing by all the dissenters, et al., I'm surprised
> she didn't "protect Yoko's image" in her own post,
> if this is what she "truly wanted to do",
John, 'Yoko bashing' has been going on long before Francie arrived in this
newsgroup. :3(
> by simply retaining
> her on-line quote from the N.Y. Times and by "deleting the
> direct link" back to the Times website in order to avoid the
> papers "negative connotations" or, shall we say, their
> journalist spin that the Times wrote regarding the break-up
> of the Beatles.
>
> Francie didn't do that, hence the double-standard, and
> the ruthless attack on Diana as a result of it.
I step forward. It was me, not Francie, who attacked Diana for the post.
It was me yesterday who had a go at Francie over offensive remarks regarding Heather
Mills.
Best,
Will
D 28IF
>> You bitch a lot about an apology you think she owes you. Shame you can't be
>> just as big as you want her to be, and post the apology you so obviously
>owe to
>> Diana.
>>
>>
>
>And you are just a bitch. Period. Lay off!
>
From: WAG franc...@excite.com
Date: 09/20/2000 8:17 PM Eastern
Right now I can honor my father
best by extending kindness to everyone I've been unkind to in the past...
even in cyberspace.
Francie
nowhere man
> > I step forward. It was me, not Francie, who attacked Diana for the post.
> >
> > It was me yesterday who had a go at Francie over offensive remarks regarding
> Heather
> > Mills.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Will
>
> Well then shall the two of you "put a lid on all this"
> and discuss Yoko's art show instead, re: Subject
> header "Yoko exhibit at Japan Society (New York
> City) and, ahem, Amen!
:3)
I will call hatred where I see it John.
Personally, and ironically enough, I don't care for Yoko's work. However, I was
always one of those guys who never liked rushs to judgement (e.g. 12 Angry Men) or
the mob rule (e.g. cowboy lynchings).
Best, as always,
Will
Lizz Holmans
a...@lineone.net> writes
>so you wouldn't object to being labelled a widow twenty years later?
If I was still a widow, why would I object? It would be a fact.
>
>No such thing as a professional widow?
Someone who gets paid to be a widow? I doubt it.
If you mean that not literally, I suspect there are women who make much
of their widowhood. There are folks that will trade on any misfortune.
>
>but you said it was a fact? If I say the Beatles peaked in 68.....is that a
>fact? Of course not.
I was discussing the use of the words, Will.
>
>it seems to get hinged onto Yoko Ono quite a bit.
Yes, it does. That doesn't automatically make it malicious.
>
>apart from the Nylon thread of recent, I don't recall you taking part in any of
>the anti-Yoko threads.
That's because they so quickly degenerate into name-calling mudfests. I
don't feel I have anything to add to them, so I stay out of them.
>
>>> Come down from the cross, son. We need the wood.
>
>I perceived the above as a personal attack. There was nothing in it of any
>relevance to the thread.
If you felt attacked by that, then I apologize unreservedly. My
intention was to point out to you that you are behaving like a martyr.
Now, that seems pretty mild to me in comparison to most of the dung that
gets flung here; it was also my opinion of your behavior.
It was not a judgement of your intelligence, your parentage, your looks,
your age, your dog, or your genitalia. It was my opinion of your
behavior.
>> But I am not going to attack you personally, Will.
>
>but Lizz YOU DID
You are a very tender plant, Will. I must remember that. But if you
expect to remain exempt from any criticism of your behavior, however
gently couched, then you are going to be very surprised when the bruises
appear.
But they won't be bruises from me. I wouldn't hit you hard enough for
that. I don't take advantage.
Lizz 'and you may have the last word, Will, because I'm done' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
D 28IF
>
>I step forward. It was me, not Francie, who attacked Diana for the post.
You started, and then Francie happily jumped aboard.
nowhere man
> In article <39CE8887...@lineone.net>, nowhere man <william_mulholl
> a...@lineone.net> writes
> >so you wouldn't object to being labelled a widow twenty years later?
>
> If I was still a widow, why would I object? It would be a fact.
you wouldn't be slightly annoyed after 20 years and a career spanning nearly 40?
> >No such thing as a professional widow?
>
> Someone who gets paid to be a widow? I doubt it.
> If you mean that not literally, I suspect there are women who make much
> of their widowhood. There are folks that will trade on any misfortune.
and has Yoko traded on her misfortune?
> >apart from the Nylon thread of recent, I don't recall you taking part in any of
> >the anti-Yoko threads.
>
> That's because they so quickly degenerate into name-calling mudfests. I
> don't feel I have anything to add to them, so I stay out of them.
so for example when Fred alleges that Y was involved in a conspiracy.....I will stop
here, for I don't want legal complications.
You didn't say 'boo'
> >>> Come down from the cross, son. We need the wood.
> >
> >I perceived the above as a personal attack. There was nothing in it of any
> >relevance to the thread.
>
> If you felt attacked by that, then I apologize unreservedly. My
> intention was to point out to you that you are behaving like a martyr.
a martyr? In what respect?
In wanting an end to the anti Yoko shit from one of our regular posters?
For frig sake, isn't 30 years long enough in anyone's language. Give Yoko a break
for goodness sake.
> Now, that seems pretty mild to me in comparison to most of the dung that
> gets flung here; it was also my opinion of your behavior.
and your behaviour has always been hauty and aloof. <you want honesty, you get
honesty>
> It was not a judgement of your intelligence, your parentage, your looks,
> your age, your dog, or your genitalia. It was my opinion of your
> behavior.
see above.
> >> But I am not going to attack you personally, Will.
> >
> >but Lizz YOU DID
>
> You are a very tender plant, Will. I must remember that. But if you
> expect to remain exempt from any criticism of your behavior, however
> gently couched, then you are going to be very surprised when the bruises
> appear.
>
> But they won't be bruises from me. I wouldn't hit you hard enough for
> that. I don't take advantage.
you did bruise me.
> Lizz 'and you may have the last word, Will, because I'm done' Holmans
>
> --
> Lizz Holmans
and here's another thing..............why the hauty/snobbish always changing
signature line?
Talk TO ME..........not AT ME!
D 28IF
> And so, D 28IF, based on your summation of the
> events from the posters, Francie and Will, what, pray
> tell, oh wise one, have *their remarks* suppose to do
> with Yoko Ono's art exhibit at the Japan Society in
> New York??? ;-)
>
> Best Wishes,
> John
>
>
Well, following their logic (or lack thereof), it means Francie will see the
exhibit and enjoy it, and Will doesn't care much for Yoko as an artist, but
that's ok.
:-)
nowhere man
> And so, D 28IF, based on your summation of the
> events from the posters, Francie and Will, what, pray
> tell, oh wise one, have *their remarks* suppose to do
> with Yoko Ono's art exhibit at the Japan Society in
> New York??? ;-)
don't push it John....or else somebody might ask you where you stand on Diana's: 10
reasons Why I hate Yoko thread from many moons ago. This shit happened long before
Francie entered RMB.
;3)
D 28IF
>
>don't push it John....or else somebody might ask you where you stand on
>Diana's: 10
>reasons Why I hate Yoko thread from many moons ago. This shit happened long
>before
>Francie entered RMB.
Will, you're continually bringing up a post of Diana's from months ago.
Would you now like us to dig up old posts of yours and continue an attack on
you over them?
This is quite silly. Let it go, already. You've swerved so far off your
original complaint in this thread, it's failed to be amusing.
Lizz Holmans
a...@lineone.net> writes
>
>you wouldn't be slightly annoyed after 20 years and a career spanning nearly 40?
I might be annoyed that I hadn't managed to marry again, but with my
track record, I might find it soothing. But annoyed at being called a
widow when I was one? That would be rather silly.
>
>and has Yoko traded on her misfortune?
Some would say so. I don't, particularly.
>
>so for example when Fred alleges that Y was involved in a conspiracy.....I will
>stop
>here, for I don't want legal complications.
>
>You didn't say 'boo'
I recall exchanging some words with Fred over that very subject.
>a martyr? In what respect?
With your persistent demands for an apology from Diana.
>and your behaviour has always been hauty and aloof. <you want honesty, you get
>honesty>
Yes, I am aloof. I don't want to play most of the nasty games I see
played here. See, I'm a Beatles fan. I like to read about the Beatles. I
like to talk about the Beatles. I don't like to argue about
personalities.
>
>you did bruise me.
And I apologized.
>
>and here's another thing..............why the hauty/snobbish always changing
>signature line?
Haughty and snobbish? It's commonplace where I spend most of my time
when I'm on Usenet. Nearly everyone does it. It's topical, it's
sometimes amusing. It's a habit I enjoy. I do it in most every newsgroup
I post in most every time I post. When I don't do it, it's generally a
sign that I'm really, really ticked, or sad, or overwhelmed with
emotion.
Just because it isn't done here very often doesn't make it snobbish.
Anyone can do it. I didn't invent it and I don't own it.
Will, if it makes you feel good to pick at me about my internym, go
right ahead. But I won't stop doing it.
Lizz 'if I weren't so haughty and snobbish I might say something
plebeian like "Nanny nanny boo boo" here, but I am, so I won't' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Diana
the word "widow" in the title of the article. Perhaps Will and Francie are not
aware of the play on words here. A "widow's peak" refers to a that, rather
than going straight across, has a point (peak) in the middle. I don't know how
the terminology came about, but that's all the title was: a play on words.
Whoever wrote it probably has a "punny" sense of humor and couldn't resist
using it.
It's a shame all this time and emotional energy hadn't been put to better use
-- namely discussing the article and the art works described therein.
And now I see Will's complaining about Lizz changing her sig? What's next, an
argument about who does and doesn't indent paragraphs? Oh, and what about
people don't capitalize properly; how annoying is *that*, huh?
- - - - -
Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your heart.
Peace is not God's gift to human beings, but their gift to one another.
~~ Elie Wiesel, Concentration Camp Survivor
Diana
> across, has a point (peak) in the middle.
The missing word is....hairline. Sorry about that!
The Hawk
> From what I can gather, a good deal of the animosity is because of the use of
> the word "widow" in the title of the article. Perhaps Will and Francie are
> not
> aware of the play on words here. A "widow's peak" refers to a that, rather
> than going straight across, has a point (peak) in the middle. I don't know
> how
> the terminology came about, but that's all the title was: a play on words.
> Whoever wrote it probably has a "punny" sense of humor and couldn't resist
> using it.
>
> It's a shame all this time and emotional energy hadn't been put to better use
> -- namely discussing the article and the art works described therein.
>
> And now I see Will's complaining about Lizz changing her sig? What's next, an
> argument about who does and doesn't indent paragraphs? Oh, and what about
> people don't capitalize properly; how annoying is *that*, huh?
>
> - - - - -
> Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can break your heart.
>
> Peace is not God's gift to human beings, but their gift to one another.
> ~~ Elie Wiesel, Concentration Camp Survivor
Well said, Diana
Steve (The Hawk)
nowhere man
> From what I can gather,
'from what I can gether'??
Are you out digging spuds?
> a good deal of the animosity is because of the use of
> the word "widow" in the title of the article. Perhaps Will and Francie are not
> aware of the play on words here. A "widow's peak" refers to a that, rather
> than going straight across, has a point (peak) in the middle. I don't know how
> the terminology came about, but that's all the title was: a play on words.
> Whoever wrote it probably has a "punny" sense of humor and couldn't resist
> using it.
>
> It's a shame all this time and emotional energy hadn't been put to better use
> -- namely discussing the article and the art works described therein.
>
> And now I see Will's complaining about Lizz changing her sig? What's next, an
> argument about who does and doesn't indent paragraphs? Oh, and what about
> people don't capitalize properly; how annoying is *that*, huh?
>
> - - - -Peace is not God's gift to human beings, but their gift to one another.
> ~~ Elie Wiesel, Concentration Camp Survivor
by the way Diana, what happened the anti-Yoko siggie? Not the appropriate time to
use it I bet.
Does Yoko Ono not qualify for any of the 'love' (as mentioned in this new siggie
file)? Just why do you hate her so intensely? Have you EVER met her?
You can't answer the questions, because then the cat will be out of the bag to any
new readers of this newsgroup. The bottom line is you hate the woman. Fudge all
you want.
Will
Capt.Vegemite
"Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000925050057...@nso-cs.aol.com...
> The missing word is....hairline.
i know a lot of men would agree with that statement..:)
D 28IF
>by the way Diana, what happened the anti-Yoko siggie? Not the appropriate
>time to
>use it I bet.
>
>Does Yoko Ono not qualify for any of the 'love' (as mentioned in this new
>siggie
>file)? Just why do you hate her so intensely? Have you EVER met her?
>
>You can't answer the questions, because then the cat will be out of the bag
>to any
>new readers of this newsgroup. The bottom line is you hate the woman. Fudge
>all
>you want.
>
>Will
>
>
Will, you're so off base with your comments, you're obviously swimming upstream
to find a reason not to apologise for Diana for falsely accusing her of writing
something negative about Yoko.
If there's something going on in your real life that is taking your
concentration away, I'm sincerely sorry for it, but think maybe you shouldn't
post while it's going on. Lord knows I don't always agree with you, but I don't
recall ever seeing you go as far as you are now.
nowhere man
as far as.... me saying Diana hates Yoko?
Oh shucks license plate, I will have to curb myself somewhat.
Why all of this mock pity that you show peeps? It just shows you up for the
heartless bitch that you are.
Toodle loo.
D 28IF
>> Will, you're so off base with your comments, you're obviously swimming
>upstream
>> to find a reason not to apologise for Diana for falsely accusing her of
>writing
>> something negative about Yoko.
>>
>> If there's something going on in your real life that is taking your
>> concentration away, I'm sincerely sorry for it, but think maybe you
>shouldn't
>> post while it's going on. Lord knows I don't always agree with you, but I
>don't
>> recall ever seeing you go as far as you are now.
>
>
>as far as.... me saying Diana hates Yoko?
As far as your broken record ramblings about Diana hating Yoko in a thread
where that subject has absolutely no place, nothing to do with it.
>
>Why all of this mock pity that you show peeps? It just shows you up for
>the
>heartless bitch that you are.
Ah, so when someone shows any amount of sympathy or human compassion, and it's
not someone you're normally friendly with, you shoot it down. Reveals loads
about you, Will.
You're turning more and more into Francie. Hope you can live with yourself.
>Toodle loo.
Yeah, the loo is an appopriate word for the diatribes you've been writing since
yesterday.
WAG
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
> >From: nowhere man william_m...@lineone.net
>
> >
> >don't push it John....or else somebody might ask you where you stand on
> >Diana's: 10
> >reasons Why I hate Yoko thread from many moons ago. This shit happened long
> >before
> >Francie entered RMB.
>
> Will, you're continually bringing up a post of Diana's from months ago.
>
> Would you now like us to dig up old posts of yours and continue an attack on
> you over them?
>
>
>
*us*?
Your threats of group retaliation for pointing out how Yoko Ono is hated are
typical.
The "Small Excerpt" from the Anthology book is only today's kickoff. As if
George Harrison's only statement on his memory of 32 years ago is all about
how Yoko was a wedge between John and his beloved Moptops, and the only part
of the book that matters to *us* is conclusive evidence that Yoko indeed was
thinking long-range when she fell in love with John.
The *us* you use as a weapon is the saddest and sickest thing about this
group.
You're pathetic people whose main energy is spent in attacking one woman.
None of your poisonous writings matters in the big picture, but it seems to
be the only mark you'll ever make within this tiny fractional group of
self-appointed authorities and "fans".
Your sickness is the very same as everything the Beatles fought against. Out
of one side of your blabbing mouths you say you've read everything ever
written about the group so you * know* the Big Truth. Out of the other side,
you wax sentimental about how much joy the Fabs' music has brought you. And
out of your ass, you make personal attacks on me and Will and anyone who
defends our right to disagree.
Last night I went to a concert by the greatest living composer of popular
music, Randy Newman. With just a piano, he talked and sang for two hours,
reminding me what this twisted newsgroup purports to be about.
The Beatles are dead and gone from this group. You and your nasty pals have
replaced what they stood for (fun, love, rock & roll, peace) with hate and
envy and greed and sloth and prideful gossip, you have drained all the
meaning out of their legacy.
Day after day I've watched you parade your toxic arguments against Yoko Ono
as a wife, woman, and artist through this ng.
Along with that, you've continuously displayed your ignorance and bigotry,
and worst of all, your amusement with all of it.
Up there above this window, it says "The SUBJECT line should be a brief
summary or description of what your message is about."
This thread started with a posting of a New York Times Magazine feature on
Yoko. It was NEVER about "Yoko Exhibit at Japan Society (New York City)" The
header itself was disrespectful and misleading.
What has followed is an embarrassingly characteristic series of insults and
arguments. Not *one* post was about the content of the article, or the
extra-special treat of the "Smile" film Yoko made starring John Lennon,
founder and driving creative force behind the group.
*us* are the sickest people posting here, far sicker and more destructive
than Marek ever was or could be.
Francie
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bradchevy
>The "Small Excerpt" from the Anthology book is only today's kickoff. As if
>George Harrison's only statement on his memory of 32 years ago is all about
>how Yoko was a wedge between John and his beloved Moptops, and the only part
>of the book that matters to *us* is conclusive evidence that Yoko indeed was
>thinking long-range when she fell in love with John.
Well, since the surviving group members are referring to the book as the
definitive statement on their career, the story as only those who lived through
it can tell it and they had approval on what was included, it appears as though
this is what Mr. "Tough Lip" wanted on the record regarding the topic.
Glitterstim Rage
>what they stood for (fun, love, rock & roll, peace)
The Beatles didn't stand for Jack shit. It pisses me off when people elevate
the Beatles to the status of spiritual deities. The Beatles were four
complicated human beings. They couldn't even get along with each other.
The Walrus was Danny
else
> to do beside pointing your bony finger at Will, 28?
Hey Franks, what's wrong with boney fingers? You prefer them to be fattened
up a little...like the old woman with the broom stick in Hansel and Gretel!!
Ha! Gotcha!
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
So tucked away in another thread is how Franks sneaks Yoyo out of GHs
criticism..let's have an iddy widdy butchers at this one shall we...
> The "Small Excerpt" from the Anthology book is only today's kickoff. As if
> George Harrison's only statement on his memory of 32 years ago is all
about
> how Yoko was a wedge between John and his beloved Moptops, and the only
part
> of the book that matters to *us* is conclusive evidence that Yoko indeed
was
> thinking long-range when she fell in love with John.
This is just great! It's like GHs statement doesn't matter coz he said oh,
lots of things, and this is only just one of them...Ha ha! She's a bloody
gem!
>
> The *us* you use as a weapon is the saddest and sickest thing about this
> group.
Sicker than the Nazi spammers..I think not. Sicker than your own blind
worship of Yoyo..nah.
>
> You're pathetic people whose main energy is spent in attacking one woman.
> None of your poisonous writings matters in the big picture, but it seems
to
> be the only mark you'll ever make within this tiny fractional group of
> self-appointed authorities and "fans".
That must worth a gift from Yoyo of say oooh $50? Let's see if Franks can
drum up a few more pennies?.....
>
> Your sickness is the very same as everything the Beatles fought against.
Out
> of one side of your blabbing mouths
..Like in Yellow Submarine?....
you say you've read everything ever
> written about the group so you * know* the Big Truth. Out of the other
side,
> you wax sentimental about how much joy the Fabs' music has brought you.
And
> out of your ass, you make personal attacks on me and Will and anyone who
> defends our right to disagree.
..But who farts "Pencildick" out eh? Franks?...
>
> Last night I went to a concert by the greatest living composer of popular
> music, Randy Newman. With just a piano, he talked and sang for two hours,
> reminding me what this twisted newsgroup purports to be about.
Well that's very relevent isn't it Franks?
>
> The Beatles are dead and gone from this group. You and your nasty pals
have
> replaced what they stood for (fun, love, rock & roll, peace) with hate and
> envy and greed and sloth and prideful gossip, you have drained all the
> meaning out of their legacy.
OOhh look Franks is all upset and angry.
>
> Day after day
Badfinger Apple 40..great single..(off Straight up - Sapcor 19)
I've watched you parade your toxic arguments against Yoko Ono
> as a wife, woman, and artist through this ng.
$100 and climbing, ching goes the Franks bank account register.
>
> Along with that, you've continuously displayed your ignorance and bigotry,
> and worst of all, your amusement with all of it.
How many Yoyo's does it take to change a light bulb?
>
> Up there above this window, it says "The SUBJECT line should be a brief
> summary or description of what your message is about."
Uh oh..leg it! It's the Usenet police.
>
> This thread started with a posting of a New York Times Magazine feature on
> Yoko. It was NEVER about "Yoko Exhibit at Japan Society (New York City)"
The
> header itself was disrespectful and misleading.
Big Deal. Live with it.
>
> What has followed is an embarrassingly characteristic series of insults
and
> arguments. Not *one* post was about the content of the article, or the
> extra-special treat of the "Smile" film Yoko made starring John Lennon,
> founder and driving creative force behind the group.
So what. We all developed. Like a sunflower we blossomed and flourished
feeding upon the lifeblood that was the thread "Re: Yoko exhibit at Japan
Society (New York City)". Together we made it into something new and
beautiful.
>
> *us* are the sickest people posting here, far sicker and more destructive
> than Marek ever was or could be.
Hey Mazz! Franks is calling you "sick"..that's not nice Franks!
Danny
D 28IF
>*us*?
>
>Your threats of group retaliation for pointing out how Yoko Ono is hated are
>typical.
Nope, I was speaking figuratively. You're right, I should have used "I". Just
like when you threatened someone last week.
>The "Small Excerpt" from the Anthology book is only today's kickoff. As if
>George Harrison's only statement on his memory of 32 years ago is all about
>how Yoko was a wedge between John and his beloved Moptops, and the only part
>of the book that matters to *us* is conclusive evidence that Yoko indeed was
>thinking long-range when she fell in love with John.
>
It was the only excerpt I was passed on. When and if I receive more, I will
post those, as well.
Interesting how upset you seem to be. You're beloved George not speaking kindly
of Yoko seems to make you all the more angry.
>The *us* you use as a weapon is the saddest and sickest thing about this
>group.
No, you are the saddest and sickest thing about this group.
>You're pathetic people whose main energy is spent in attacking one woman.
Really? Please show me where all I've posted about Yoko, and how everything
I've posted about her has been negative. You could begin by reposting a
response I made this morning where I actually stuck up for her when someone
wrote why they couldn't stand her. But I'm sure you either "didn't see that,"
or you'll forget about it, since it doesn't fit your nicely narrow view of
things.
> Out
>of one side of your blabbing mouths you say you've read everything ever
>written about the group so you * know* the Big Truth.
Again, you'll have to show me where I have *ever* clamed to know everything
about the group. I haven't read everything ever written about them.
>Out of the other side,
>you wax sentimental about how much joy the Fabs' music has brought you. And
>out of your ass, you make personal attacks on me and Will and anyone who
>defends our right to disagree.
That's funny. If you replace myself and people like d. or Diana with "me and
Will," that would read as a good description of you. There is one thing you're
better than anybody at in this group, and it's projection.
>You and your nasty pals have
>replaced what they stood for (fun, love, rock & roll, peace) with hate and
>envy and greed and sloth and prideful gossip, you have drained all the
>meaning out of their legacy.
Then what on earth are you still doing here?
>*us* are the sickest people posting here, far sicker and more destructive
>than Marek ever was or could be.
Yes, *you* are.
D 28IF
>> Last night I went to a concert by the greatest living composer of popular
>> music, Randy Newman. With just a piano, he talked and sang for two hours,
>> reminding me what this twisted newsgroup purports to be about.
>
>Well that's very relevent isn't it Franks?
>>
It's par for the course, Danny.
See, Francie feels it's important to post her itinerary here. For some reason
she thinks people care what she's doing, where she's going.
Funny thing is, she then tried to blast someone a few days ago saying, "You
don't know anything about me."
Problem is, since Francie treats this ng like a Dear Diary, we do indeed know
many things about her.
Capt.Vegemite
"Glitterstim Rage" <glitter...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000925154636...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
>The Beatles were four complicated human beings. They couldn't even get
along with each other.
just when you thought the stupidity had reached an all time low... along
comes glittery to bring the crossbar down a few notches.
"they couldnbt even get along with each other.".......LOL! yes, they had
twenty odd years of pure hatred for each other!
way to go puddenhead!
Revenge of Sith
>As if
>George Harrison's only statement on his memory of 32 years ago is all about
>how Yoko was a wedge between John and his beloved Moptops
If Paul, not George, made that statement, Francie would have demonized Paul.