YOKO: A Review
Nowhere Man
> If her music/art/agenda offends you, so be it. If you find goodness
> there, so be it. Let's be reasonable, for Yoko, like us, knows how to
> cry too.
exactly.....and when cut, she bleeds too.
Will
Mister Charlie
lost, so I'm reprinting it here. An inflated sense of importance
perhaps.
My friends, Yoko, like Paul and John and George and Ringo and Brian
Epstein and George Martin and all such celebrities, are PEOPLE.
Humans. We are only generally aware of and hate/love their IMAGE. We
make them bigger than us; bigger than they are. Heroes are just humans
doing extraordinary things. Not to diminish their accomplishments, but
to put them, as people, into clear view. We THINK we know them, but of
course we really don't. When you approach a celebrity you already love
or hate, you know all about their work or public faux pas, and you have
an agenda (autograph, critique). But they don't know YOU from Adam.
Imagine (!) how scary that is: to be approached by a perfect stranger
who treats you like a long lost relative. Who knows everything about
you and you don't even know their name. And they WANT something from
you...photo, autograph, money... Now think on this happening every
time you walk out your door, every day, every night, everywhere you
go. It's the downside of fame.
I think Yoko won a special grace when John died, as before that time
she was very very vilifed. (Linda McCartney, too, won immense respect,
mainly posthumously...before that she was criticized almost as much as
Yoko.) As Mrs. Lennon, widow, the world finally sensed the connection,
the long marriage between her and John. And as great as our pain was
(and it was monumental), her's and Sean's was and will always be
deeper, worse.
I met Yoko in Carmel CA around 1988, at an art gallery. I was lucky
enough to get an interview with her in a private room...Elliot Mintz
screened me and let me pass. I was to have only two minutes with her.
I asked a question or two, but it turned into more like a
conversation.
Elliot stood behind Yoko waving his arms for me to wrap it up, which I
began to do. As I stood up, Yoko began talking to me again, and I sat
back down. We had a few more minutes before it was time to go.
The Yoko I met was generous, kind, professional, and in general a very
nice lady.
All of us have dark sides. None of us have them exposed as thoroughly
as some, like Yoko, do. Would you want that? God knows I would not! I
was a vocal, superficial detractor of hers in the 60's and 70's, like
many. I felt bad for her in December 1980, like most of us. And I've
watched her live her life with an attempt at quiet dignity, shy of her
loud art.
If her music/art/agenda offends you, so be it. If you find goodness
there, so be it. Let's be reasonable, for Yoko, like us, knows how to
cry too.
--
"...I ain't no fool and I don't take what I don't want..."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Christine
Yoko* threads...I don't love the woman, but I certainly don't *hate* her
either, and I feel that Yoko Ono is a *perfect* example to use when trying, in
life, to illustrate the fact that within the boundaries of black and white
there exist many many shades of gray.
This post said everything that I wished I could say without becoming
*emotional* over the subject. I knew that I would never succeed in keeping
those emotions from creeping in, so I instead chose to say nothing. Thank you
for giving words and thoughts to my feelings.
Yoko Ono is a complex human being. Her husband was, I think, just as complex a
human being, and that complexity is, I'm convinced, a very big part of why so
many of us here still love and respect the man...still discuss him, still find
so much about him that intrigues and fascinates us. Theirs was not the perfect
marriage...with two people like John and Yoko, how *could* it have been...?
But the bottom line remains...Yoko is not simply John Lennon's widow; she's
also a human being, trying to live her life after losing the man I believe to
have been her soul mate in many ways. Question her behavior? Of course. Who
doesn't? She's made mistakes...but so have we all. Has she ever done anything
to make me come even remotely close to *hatred*? Not in this lifetime. Hate
is a very strong word; for many years, I would not even admit to the fact that
I held any *hate* for Chapman - although I'm finally coming to terms with the
fact that I *can* use that word when describing my feelings for him. He did
something despicable, unforgivable and senseless. I find no empathy in my soul
for him. Yoko Ono fell in love with a man adored by millions. She married a
man as flawed as she is. Together they were one hell of a story.
Let the hate go.
Tammy Loney
it......
It just seems so stupid that everyone hates Yoko. I frankly like her..sure
she's done some bad things in her
life, but haven't we all?? It's because she's a HUMAN! As far as I see, if
it wasn't for Yoko, we wouldn't have a lot of things we take for granted now
(i.e. Lennon Anthology, all of the Beatles Anthologies, etc .....). She
keeps shelling out Lennon products, and everyone is saying that she is
tarnishing John's image and she shouldn't "sell out". Honestly, I would
rather her sell all of the Lennon stuff she can and keep his memory alive
than to have her horde all of these things (and run the risk of my
generation and those younger than me not knowing who John was) just to
protect his "image". The only thing she ever did was try to be happy. And
she's hated for it...
How childish.......
Tammy
Deirdre
Why would you assume that nobody saw it the first time? ...Dee
Amaranth56
>> there, so be it. Let's be reasonable, for Yoko, like us, knows how to
>> cry too.
>
Ah, but so does John's son, John's sister, John's ex-wife, and so did John's
uncle. Surely they too have cried many tears because of what Yoko has done to
them.
That's all I meant to get across. I find many of her actions hurtful and
*destructive* to other members of John's family whom he loved dearly.
I make it my business because of my respect for John. Admittedly, it's an
awkward situation. I repeat what I said before: How do YOU think John would
feel had he known about what Yoko did to Norman Birch, Julia Baird and his own
flesh-and-blood son? Not to mention to himself -- John.
Many of you won't believe me, but I have no agenda. Or rather, my only agenda
is to speak the truth (as much of the truth as a fan can know) -- without
shoving aside anything that doesn't fit false images or expectations. False
expectations about a some Yoko myth developed by professional spin doctors, or
about what does and doesn't belong on this newsgroup.
The truth shall set you free. But it also makes people very uncomfortable.
- - - - -
Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers.
-- Mignon McLaughlin
chocolate jesus......
news:19990930190910...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
> >> If her music/art/agenda offends you, so be it. If you find goodness
> >> there, so be it. Let's be reasonable, for Yoko, like us, knows how to
> >> cry too.
> >
> >exactly.....and when cut, she bleeds too.
>
> Ah, but so does John's son, John's sister, John's ex-wife, and so did
John's
> uncle. Surely they too have cried many tears because of what Yoko has
done to
> them.
its none of our business.
>
> That's all I meant to get across. I find many of her actions hurtful and
> *destructive* to other members of John's family whom he loved dearly.
its none of our business.
>
> I make it my business because of my respect for John.
um, its none of our business to make it our business.
>Admittedly, it's an awkward situation. I repeat what I said before: How
do YOU think John would
> feel had he known about what Yoko did to Norman Birch, Julia Baird and his
own
> flesh-and-blood son? Not to mention to himself -- John.
it's none of our business diane.
not to second guess john, not to "protect" him, not to worry about him.
>
> Many of you won't believe me, but I have no agenda. Or rather, my only
agenda
> is to speak the truth (as much of the truth as a fan can know)
fans of the music, not the people.
> -- without
> shoving aside anything that doesn't fit false images or expectations.
False
> expectations about a some Yoko myth developed by professional spin
doctors, or
> about what does and doesn't belong on this newsgroup.
nor do personal view points about how these people conduct their lives.
> The truth shall set you free. But it also makes people very
uncomfortable.
what the hell the truth got to do with it?
you nor i nor anyone else will ever really know the truth.
why? because it's none of our bloody business.
simple.
why seek to intrude and pass judgement where you're not wanted?
how would you guys feel if some stranger started in on you about how you
deal with your family matters?
it's absurd to think we have any right to do the saeem with the fabs, any of
them.
Amaranth56
If you read my posts carefully, you'll find that I've passed no judgment.
>how would you guys feel if some stranger started in on you about how you
>deal with your family matters?
If I were a celebrity whose fans made it possible for me to be a
multi-millionaire and live in ultimate luxury, I'd have to expect them to be
curious about my life. From there, it would be only natural to have opinions.
>it's absurd to think we have any right to do the saeem with the fabs,
> any of them.
To you it's absurb. To me it's natural curiosity.
Warning! Broad generalization follows!
This attitude of "It's none of your business" seems to be shared, by and large,
by men. Women love learning about the lives of those they admire. When Julian
goes on national television, show after show, and tells us what has gone on, am
I supposed to shut my mind and mouth, and ignore what he says? The situation
with Norman Birch was publicized in major British publications. IOW, it was
news. Are we not allowed to discuss news? Cynthia and Julia Baird gave an
extensive interview in "Hello!" magazine. Shall we just make believe we didn't
read it?
Why is public news, international news, none of our business?
If you feel this is none of your business, fine. Please don't impose YOUR
beliefs upon me, or expect me to live any aspect of my life as you do yours.
This is a public forum for the very purpose of discussing Beatle-related
matters. Yoko was married to a Beatle, and she has a 25% say in what is to be
released -- as much a say as Paul, George and Ringo.
chocolate jesus......
> >why seek to intrude and pass judgement where you're not wanted?
>
> If you read my posts carefully, you'll find that I've passed no judgment.
>
> >how would you guys feel if some stranger started in on you about how you
> >deal with your family matters?
>
> If I were a celebrity whose fans made it possible for me to be a
multi-millionaire and live in ultimate luxury,
the fans didn't make it possible.
their art did.
no art=no music=no fans.
> I'd have to expect them to be
> curious about my life.
curious yes.
angry? nah.
> From there, it would be only natural to have opinions.
of course. but obscene vitriol, hate, spite, anger, maliciousness?
nothing gives one the right to harbour those feelings.
that is simply self indulgence.
>
> >it's absurd to think we have any right to do the saeem with the fabs,
> > any of them.
>
> To you it's absurb. To me it's natural curiosity.
i apprectiate curiosity. when it spills over into angry hate filled
vindictivness, it's simply unhealthy
>
> Warning! Broad generalization follows!
i never called you a broad!
>
> This attitude of "It's none of your business" seems to be shared, by and
large,
> by men. Women love learning about the lives of those they admire.
is that linked to the perception that women like to gossip more than men?
> When Julian
> goes on national television, show after show, and tells us what has gone
on, am
> I supposed to shut my mind and mouth, and ignore what he says?
do you think he is speaking directly to you, asking for help?
and what makes you sure that his speaking gives you carte blanche to get so
damn angry at a total stranger?
i'm sorry, i just find it weird is all.
> The situation with Norman Birch was publicized in major British
publications. IOW, it was
> news.
"aliens abducted my car" type of stories are also written about in major
publications.
>.Are we not allowed to discuss news? Cynthia and Julia Baird gave an
> extensive interview in "Hello!" magazine. Shall we just make believe we
didn't
> read it?
i have no say over what anyone thinks, says or does.
all i ever say is what the hell good does it do and why get so angry over a
showbiz personality?
ridge and thorn..:)
>
> Why is public news, international news, none of our business?
wel you are going on your defintion of news as being published in a major
journal.
see above re: aliens ate my buick
>
> If you feel this is none of your business, fine. Please don't impose YOUR
> beliefs upon me, or expect me to live any aspect of my life as you do
yours.
diane, i state a case against the hate campaign.
as you state your case for it.
did i ever tell you to shut up?
all i am doing is debating it with you..
>
> This is a public forum for the very purpose of discussing Beatle-related
> matters. Yoko was married to a Beatle, and she has a 25% say in what is
to be
> released -- as much a say as Paul, George and Ringo.
please tell me then why we should maintain the rage over her stealing not
only george's digestive biscuit, but also his cushioned seat over thirty
years ago?
CYBERFLOYD
>years ago?
>
That was George's last digestive buscuit and he walked out of the Beatles in
disgust. "See you round the pubs" he said.
They had a band meeting and coaxed him back to finish the album by giving him
a whole box, but you see it was Yoko's thievery that almost caused the Breakup
one album early.
chocolate jesus......
Ric325v59 <ric3...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990930221027...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
> >please tell me then why we should maintain the rage over her stealing not
> >years ago?
> >
>
> Some things are absolutely unforgiveable. One may forget, as I had (until
you
> reminded me and provided quite the belly laugh...)
ok i'm glad that one good laugh has been generated by this thread.
hands up, have their been any others?
C "sit on my cushion and i'll guess your weight" J
--
"Never trust a man in a blue trench coat,
never drive a car when you're dead."
chocolate jesus......
CYBERFLOYD <cyber...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990930223306...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> >please tell me then why we should maintain the rage over her stealing not
> >years ago?
> >
> That was George's last digestive buscuit and he walked out of the Beatles
in
> disgust. "See you round the pubs" he said.
> They had a band meeting and coaxed him back to finish the album by giving
him
> a whole box, but you see it was Yoko's thievery that almost caused the
Breakup
well that still doesn't explain how the cushion got away without being
villified.after all, it had the temerity to actually hold yoko arse off the
ground for a few minutes, and as such, should have been immediately put up
against a wall and shot.
does lewishon mention what happened to that cushion? will it be remixed,
remastered, reupholstered, booted?
this is an all new beatles mystery unfolding right here on RMB!
D 28IF
>> If I were a celebrity whose fans made it possible for me to be a
multi-millionaire and live in ultimate luxury, <Amaranth>
>the fans didn't make it possible.
>their art did.
>no art=no music=no fans.
Their art is a commodity. If no fans buy it, there's no multi-millions to be
made.
So, "their art did" isn't exactly correct. The fans *did* make it possible, by
buying that art.
chocolate jesus......
news:19990930230626...@ng-co1.aol.com...
if so, does that mean that you can justify any action you choose by virtue
of the fact that you bought the commodity?
but more importantly, what's your view on the digestive biscuit?......:p
D 28IF
>
>> Their art is a commodity. If no fans buy it, there's no multi-millions to
>be
>> made.
>>
>> So, "their art did" isn't exactly correct. The fans *did* make it
>possible, by
>> buying that art.
>
>if so, does that mean that you can justify any action you choose by virtue
>of the fact that you bought the commodity?
>
>
Oh, no, not at all. I wasn't even referring to that portion of the post. The
whole "chicken vs. egg" bit about the art or the fans grabbed my attention, is
all.
>but more importantly, what's your view on the digestive biscuit?......:p
>
>
>
Well, now that depends. Was George actually about to eat it? Or did he *know*
it was a favourite of Yoko's, and plant it nearby, the better to tempt her into
pilfering it?
chocolate jesus......
> >From: "chocolate jesus......" mr...@mcgoo.com.co.uk
>
> >
> >> Their art is a commodity. If no fans buy it, there's no multi-millions
to
> >be
> >> made.
> >>
> >> So, "their art did" isn't exactly correct. The fans *did* make it
> >possible, by
> >> buying that art.
> >
> >if so, does that mean that you can justify any action you choose by
virtue
> >of the fact that you bought the commodity?
> >
> >
>
> Oh, no, not at all. I wasn't even referring to that portion of the post.
The
> whole "chicken vs. egg" bit about the art or the fans grabbed my
attention, is
> all.
i was going to mention the dreaded chicken and the egg, but thought...nah..
>
>
> >but more importantly, what's your view on the digestive biscuit?......:p
> >
> >
> >
>
> Well, now that depends. Was George actually about to eat it? Or did he
*know*
> it was a favourite of Yoko's, and plant it nearby, the better to tempt her
into
> pilfering it?
ahah! once again you fanatics, blinded by hate, miss the bloody point!
the real question is clearly "did the biscuit want to be eaten"?
Kathy
>ahah! once again you fanatics, blinded by hate, miss the bloody point!
>
>the real question is clearly "did the biscuit want to be eaten"?
>
I disagree. The real question is clearly "did the biscuit want to be eaten by
*Yoko*"?
That it would have preferred to be eaten by George is a given according to all
my sources.
~Kathy <--can't believe I'm getting involved in this but what the hell.
D 28IF
>
>> >but more importantly, what's your view on the digestive biscuit?......:p
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Well, now that depends. Was George actually about to eat it? Or did he
>*know*
>> it was a favourite of Yoko's, and plant it nearby, the better to tempt her
>into
>> pilfering it?
>
>ahah! once again you fanatics, blinded by hate, miss the bloody point!
>
>the real question is clearly "did the biscuit want to be eaten"?
>
>
Hmmm, an interesting premise. I'd have to point to the Mark Lewisohn tome,
"What Was Eaten During the Session and Why," to cite the biscuit *did* in fact
expect to be eaten. The question therefore becomes, did it have a preference as
to the eater. Lewisohn never ventures into that category because, as you often
say, CJ, it's none of his business.
chocolate jesus......
news:19991001000240...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
> >From: "chocolate jesus......"
>
> >ahah! once again you fanatics, blinded by hate, miss the bloody point!
> >
> >the real question is clearly "did the biscuit want to be eaten"?
> >
>
eaten by
> *Yoko*"?
>
> That it would have preferred to be eaten by George is a given according to
all
> my sources.
>
whle i take your point to an extent, this begs the question, does it not, as
the origin of the biscuit's wildy vascilating loyalty?
didn't john, in the playboy interviews, allude to the biscuit having a bad
reputation around london?
and would this not be indicative of a certain "loose morality"(no flame
intended) when it came to who was, _in the biscuits mind_, the intended
consumer?
i think if you answer this honestly, you can only come up with one response.
and that is, and can only be, the cushion.
cj
--
i'm on the road for a few days now but i'll be keen to see how this vexing
question is resolved.
play nicely now.
D 28IF
>
>> I disagree. The real question is clearly "did the biscuit want to be
>eaten by
>> *Yoko*"?
>>
>> That it would have preferred to be eaten by George is a given according to
>all
>> my sources.
>>
>
>whle i take your point to an extent, this begs the question, does it not, as
>the origin of the biscuit's wildy vascilating loyalty?
>
>didn't john, in the playboy interviews, allude to the biscuit having a bad
>reputation around london?
>
>and would this not be indicative of a certain "loose morality"(no flame
>intended) when it came to who was, _in the biscuits mind_, the intended
>consumer?
>
>i think if you answer this honestly, you can only come up with one response.
>
>and that is, and can only be, the cushion.
>
>
Sorry, CJ, but your subterfuge of bringing up the cushion isn't going to work.
This is about the biscuit, and the biscuit only. The cushion is another matter,
altogether.
I cite Mark Hertsgaard's, "The Beatles Cushions - Sit On It," where he clearly
states, no biscuits were permitted to be ingested while a Beatle sat on a
cushion, as it was looked down upon by the EMI janitorial crew.
Kathy
>didn't john, in the playboy interviews, allude to the biscuit having a bad
>reputation around london?
John? Pfffft! What did he know?!
>and would this not be indicative of a certain "loose morality"(no flame
>intended) when it came to who was, _in the biscuits mind_, the intended
>consumer?
I'm *telling* you, I knew people who were there. I knew people who knew the
biscuit. It was always George!
>i think if you answer this honestly, you can only come up with one response.
>
>and that is, and can only be, the cushion.
Oh sure. Blame the cushion. Everyone blames the cushion. For 30 freakin' years
they've been blaming the cushion! Get over it!!
~Kathy
Amaranth56
>multi-millionaire and live in ultimate luxury,
>
>their art did.
>no art=no music=no fans.
And how many artists have no fans, even though they're talented? It's 5%
talent, 5% charisma and 90% luck.
>> From there, it would be only natural to have opinions.
>
>of course. but obscene vitriol, hate, spite, anger, maliciousness?
>nothing gives one the right to harbour those feelings.
>that is simply self indulgence.
I quoted what members of John's family and the producer of Double Fantasy said.
If you're talking about threads asking if Yoko had John killed, and does Yoko
have a male sex organ, I'm with you 100%.
>> >it's absurd to think we have any right to do the saeem with the fabs,
>> > any of them.
>>
>> To you it's absurb. To me it's natural curiosity.
>
>i apprectiate curiosity. when it spills over into angry hate filled
>vindictivness, it's simply unhealthy
Agreed.
>> Warning! Broad generalization follows!
>
>i never called you a broad!
LOL!
>> This attitude of "It's none of your business" seems to be shared, by and
>large,
>> by men. Women love learning about the lives of those they admire.
>
>is that linked to the perception that women like to gossip more than men?
>
>> When Julian
>> goes on national television, show after show, and tells us what has gone
>on, am
>> I supposed to shut my mind and mouth, and ignore what he says?
>
>do you think he is speaking directly to you, asking for help?
Of course not! But this is a forum to discuss such things. When Julian said
negative things about John, what a hypocrite he was, people mostly agreed. But
we're not allowed to talk about what Julian said about Yoko?
>and what makes you sure that his speaking gives you carte blanche
> to get so damn angry at a total stranger?
I'm not angry at Yoko. Look, I know that's the type of thing you'd expect me
to say, but it's the truth. What I *am* annoyed at are blanket accusations
when all I did was put together what quotes from what are considered to be
valid sources. Instead of being glad that I supplied information and carefully
cited my sources, quoting them verbatim, I'm told I'm angry.
I also resent being told what I can and can't discuss here.
>i'm sorry, i just find it weird is all.
>
>
>> The situation with Norman Birch was publicized in major British
>publications. IOW, it was
>> news.
>
>"aliens abducted my car" type of stories are also written about in major
>publications.
This was a legal action taken by Yoko. There was documentation. The interview
was with Norman Birch himself. It's been confirmed by Julia Baird.
To compare the above with alien abductions is a desparate attempt to make
John's uncle look like a loon when in fact Yoko tried to throw this
70-something-year-old man out of the home John bought for him so he'd never
have to worry about having a roof over his head.
Not only did Yoko act frighteningly heartlessly, but she demonstrated total
lack of respect for her husband's wishes and intentions for his family.
>>.Are we not allowed to discuss news? Cynthia and Julia Baird gave an
>> extensive interview in "Hello!" magazine. Shall we just make believe we
>didn't
>> read it?
>
>i have no say over what anyone thinks, says or does.
Of course not.
>all i ever say is what the hell good does it do and why get so angry over a
>showbiz personality?
I'm not angry!!! Ok, NOW I'm angry! (Joking :-)) I'm not angry at Yoko.
Why are you angry over a false perception of my alleged anger?
>ridge and thorn..:)
Huh? Are we talking baseball again? ;-)
>> Why is public news, international news, none of our business?
>
>wel you are going on your defintion of news as being published in a major
>journal.
>see above re: aliens ate my buick
This was documented. Legal action was taken.
>> If you feel this is none of your business, fine. Please don't impose YOUR
>> beliefs upon me, or expect me to live any aspect of my life as you do
>yours.
>
>diane, i state a case against the hate campaign.
>as you state your case for it.
>did i ever tell you to shut up?
>all i am doing is debating it with you..
There's no hate campaign. Please stop telling me that I hate or that I'm
angry. It's not true.
>> This is a public forum for the very purpose of discussing Beatle-related
>> matters. Yoko was married to a Beatle, and she has a 25% say in what is
>to be
>> released -- as much a say as Paul, George and Ringo.
>
>please tell me then why we should maintain the rage over her stealing not
>only george's digestive biscuit, but also his cushioned seat over thirty
>years ago?
There's no rage. Please re-read my post. This is about events as recent as
this year. This is about attempting to evict John's elderly relative from the
home John bought him. It's about treating John's son like garbage. It's about
deceiving John and plotting behind his back.
And I still don't understand why we can't discuss it, rather than discussing my
*perceived* intentions and emotional state.
If you have evidence contradicting anything I've said, I'd be interested in
hearing it.
Amaranth56
>
>hands up, have their been any others?
::raising my hand::
Amaranth56
>possible, by
>> buying that art.
>
>if so, does that mean that you can justify any action you choose by virtue
>of the fact that you bought the commodity?
Of course not. By the same token, does being a celebrity excuse any and all
behavior, no matter how atrocious?
Don Rife
chocolate jesus......
> the real question is clearly "did the biscuit want to be eaten"?
>
>
>
Frankly it's none of our busines. But I do have a friend who has a friend
who knows someone who actually knew someone who met the biscuit. And they
said the biscuit didn't care who ate it as long as it was eaten. Though I
believe there would have been more Beatle content if George had eaten it.
lstoll
>
> It just seems so stupid that everyone hates Yoko.
Everyone doesn't hate Yoko. Some do, some dislike some things she does,
some think highly of her, and so on. -laura
lstoll
>
> of course. but obscene vitriol, hate, spite, anger,
> maliciousness? nothing gives one the right to harbour
> those feelings. that is simply self indulgence.
I, for one, don't find Diana to be harboring any of the above. I don't
understand why so many are lumping her in with the mindless "hate Yoko"
mob when she's actually part of the thoughtful "dislike some things Yoko
has done" mob.
> please tell me then why we should maintain the rage
> over her stealing not only george's digestive biscuit,
> but also his cushioned seat over thirty years ago?
What the hell is a digestive biscuit anyway? Sounds disgusting. I bet
Yoko came up with name. (That's a joke.) -laura
Rknhrpr
butter cookie, isn't it? to be dunked in tea?
Man, that woulda really pissed me off, too. harrison shoulda knocked all her
teeth down her throat and set her hair on fire ("hair piece") for having the
audacity to "swipe" that cookie. good thing it wasn't fish 'n chips! he
probably worked really hard for the cookie, had to open his mouth and tell mal
to go get a tin. seriously, i can also imagine the animosity that musta been
around w/ yoko laying on the floor etc etc. Having 30 songs to finish on a
deadline, etc. she really did LOOK pretty miserable in the photos i've seen.
I've always thought the other 3 wimped out. I know it might seem crazy (and
how!) at this point, but if the other three and the producer said "no outsiders
allowed" (I was gonna say "no women" but want to avoid flames) why wouldn't
have that been more reasonable than just to say "well, we loved john, so we let
him do what ever he wanted". other beatles girlfriends/wives knew how to stay
outta the way. yoko sat there like a turd in a punchbowl and if sick shoulda
stayed home. and surely lennon was aware it got on the others' nerves... he was
being a naughty creep! I've been in lots of bands that had members who were
"pussywhipped" (no flames please!) It was a drag. I can't think of any artistic
instance of Yoko helping The Beatles art at all.In fact, she didn't understand
it, and said so. Well, maybe "Revolution 9"... I LOVE the beatles music. I do
not like some of them as people. like mccartney said in the past couple of
years, in the real world, why wasn't john more reasonable? wasn't love. no way.
it was ego. i want to say he was mentally ill but i don't like flames.reminds
me of woody allen and his relationship with his wife's adopted daughter-(now
his wife, i think). can't remember the judge's exact words but it was something
like "self centered with no regards for others' feelings". the fact is people
close to lennon let him get away with so much he really did act like a spoilt
child who'd we'd never visit even tho' his parents were close friends! I think
it was a shame lennon couldn't have met someone else - another female artist. i
don't hate or loath yoko, but from all i've read, she really was/is "fucked up"
in the ol' 60's meaning. And Lennon wasn't half the star he thought he was.
Just think: if Lennon woulda lived he'd have probably re-recorded every track
he did!! And this ng wouldn't even be here. Maybe would have gone the route of
the "Stones" (ughh)
these are my observations.probably lousy comparisons too, but please no flames.
rick harper
who owns all of yoko's recorded output
:-)
bongo
amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
> I make it my business because of my respect for John.
I just can't relate to this at all.
You assume you know John's wife better than he did himself,
because you've read some books. You assume you know more
than gossip, and truthfully, you don't.
And so, on the basis of gossip, you are compelled to "speak
the truth" out of your "respect for John", a man whose last
words, more or less, were "please don't trash my wife."
I don't see that as respectful at all.
But then again, I believe that life is a lot more complex than
soap opera. Tuning in every week is not sufficient to grant one
an omniscient overview of the whole picture. This is but one
of many reasons why it is wiser to work on one's own weaknesses
than to obsess over what we may imagine to be our neighbors'.
I cannot help but believe that John knew his wife one hell of a
lot better than we do. And he asked of us directly that we not
presume to trash her.
It's just never seemed that much to ask, to me.
cheers,
--bongo
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Tracy
>From: "Don Rife"
>Frankly it's none of our busines. But I do have a friend who has a friend
>who knows someone who actually knew someone who met the biscuit. And they
>said the biscuit didn't care who ate it as long as it was eaten. Though I
>believe there would have been more Beatle content if George had eaten it.
Hmmppfff!
And I thought it was only us women who gossiped!
Trace
Nowhere Man
> I am not a Yoko-apologist. I neither attack nor do I praise Yoko Ono.
> The only reason I think about her at all is because of never-ending
> attacks which take place on her, day in, day out, in this forum.
I fall into the same category ie neither wildly pro-Yoko or anti-Yoko.
She gets such a bad deal from some people in here. If those individuals
are trying to turn me (and posters like me) against Yoko, then they have
achieved exactly the opposite.
I don't see the same venom going into posts attacking Mr
Chapman........who we all can agree, wrecked 'our' dream. If we look at
in a very simplistic way (eg the number of hate posts re Yoko versus the
number re Chapman) then Yoko must be hated more.
That is VERY strange take on the whole thing. Very strange indeed.
PS - do those people who hate Yoko all live in NY? I know Ric does, as
does Diane. Nylon where do you hail from?
PS 1 - just to repeat an earlier thingie, I have always loved reading
Diane's posts....but on this subject, we have to agree to disagree. :0)
saki
>Kathy <taff...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:19991001000240...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
>> >From: "chocolate jesus......"
>>
>> >ahah! once again you fanatics, blinded by hate, miss the bloody point!
>> >
>> >
>> eaten by *Yoko*"? That it would have preferred to be eaten by George
>> is a given according to all my sources.
>
>whle i take your point to an extent, this begs the question, does it not, as
>the origin of the biscuit's wildy vascilating loyalty?
>
>reputation around london?
>
>intended) when it came to who was, _in the biscuits mind_, the intended
>consumer?
You're all jumping the gun here (to quote a song somebody wrote once).
We haven't yet determined who owned the digestive biscuit nor what kind it
was (plain? dark or light chocolate?).
If memory serves, the was a "Beatles Monthly" article in August 1971 by
William Pobjoy that uncovered evidence (via a grocery receipt) that the
biscuits were purchased by Mal Evans, though biscuit typology is not
detailed in this report. If the receipts are verifiable, I'm afraid that
this introduces another layer of complexity into the situation.
For if they were purchased by Mal, doesn't this promote the theory that
the biscuits were intended for communal consumption, and there was a
mistaken belief (on George's part) that he was the sole intended recipient
of the package and its contents? Thus his reaction to the apparent "theft"
was misplaced, and probably traceable to some other intra-studio brouhaha,
but which appeared (on film at least) to be biscuit-related. Can Michael
Lindsay-Hogg be induced to comment?
Until we understand the provenance of the item itself, as well as the
manufacturer (McVitties et al) we cannot make a judgment. In fact, it's
been attested that McVitties bicuits had free will to choose their
consumer ("Subserviency and 'Pfeffernuessenkeit': The Question of Volition
in Clan McVittie", by Angus McTavish McFergus Dundee in Journal of
Confectionary Philosophy, Vol 28IF [1969], pp. 128-129).
If Prof. Dundee is correct, such biscuits were not bound by the classical
conventions of purchase/ownership, (this accounts for Jane Asher's
sponsorship of McVitties in the early 1990s, I think it's safe to say).
Perhaps this is a subject that needs its own FAQ....
--
"The most frightening thing for a man is the energy of a woman's soul.
It's the ultimate mystery. It's more mysterious than who's going to
win the world series."
--------------------------------------------sa...@evolution.bchs.uh.edu
Nowhere Man
>
> >PS - do those people who hate Yoko all live in NY? I know Ric does, as
> >>does Diane.
>
> for myself, I don't hate Yoko, but when some things are clearly EVIDENT (that's
> the word you like to use, right Will?) they should all be measured against the
> same yardstick:
> Fred the "convicted felon" can't be trusted while Yoko (also
> proven countless times to have, if not outright lied at least misrepresented a
> bit) is given carte blanche (this in the face of anything Julian, Pang, or
> anyone else who would know has to say.
if you are using the same yardstick Ric, okay then:
Fred is a convicted felon you say......okay, is Yoko?
If you are going to put forward a 'yardstick' Ric, at least try and
think of one that advances your case.
> I wonder if Nancy Reagan is going to have two radio documentaries and a film
> epic on Ronnie in response to the (not written by Goldman) book "Dutch." It
> can now be revealed: President Reagan's favorite flower: Forget Me Nots.
I don't see the relevance.
PS - Ric, you still haven't apologised for the personal attacks. I have
initiated a thread on this matter. Just admit it man, you got it badly
wrong and now look pretty stupid.
You said you would agree with Fred 100% in an earlier part of that
thread and then Fred eventually comes along and tells us that YES INDEED
there were various demos of the song. So all the personal attacks on me
re my probing on the issue, now look so stupid. I use the word 'stupid'
Ric, because it is one of the things you called me.
Amaranth56
>
>I just can't relate to this at all.
>
>You assume you know John's wife better than he did himself,
>because you've read some books. You assume you know more
>than gossip, and truthfully, you don't.
Your assumption could not be more wrong. Please don't take this the wrong way,
but where are you getting this? Except for the first few sentences, a note
about who Dan Richter is, and a short summary at the very end, that entire post
was nothing but direct, word-for-word quotes from John's family and Jack
Douglas who worked for both John and Yoko.
Not my words; THEIR words.
>And so, on the basis of gossip, you are compelled to "speak
>the truth" out of your "respect for John", a man whose last
>words, more or less, were "please don't trash my wife."
Then take it up with Julian, Cyn, Jack, Julia Baird... Norman Birch died
several years ago. Or address your comments to what THEY said, because their
the ones who said those things. Not me.
Don't shoot the messenger :-)
>I don't see that as respectful at all.
>
>But then again, I believe that life is a lot more complex than
>soap opera. Tuning in every week is not sufficient to grant one
>an omniscient overview of the whole picture. This is but one
>of many reasons why it is wiser to work on one's own weaknesses
>than to obsess over what we may imagine to be our neighbors'.
Why do you assume I don't work with my own weaknesses? I'd go into it more
with you privately, but from what I see here, you'd twist anything I'd have to
say.
I did not twist anyone's words, nor did I make assumptions about what they
said. I quoted them word-for-word. How much more reliable would you like it?
I'm not obsessing.
I didn't imagine Yoko did those things. If you have reason to believe Jack
Douglas, John's son, John's uncle, John's sister and John's ex-wife are lying,
please elaborate. Because if you believe Yoko didn't do those things, by
default you're calling these people liars.
>I cannot help but believe that John knew his wife one hell of a
>lot better than we do. And he asked of us directly that we not
>presume to trash her.
Who's trashing Yoko? Did you read both posts? I thought I gave a balanced
picture. Do you consider it gossip to say that Yoko paid her friend's medical
bills, or to give examples of her sense of humor? If you're against gossip,
why haven't you complained about that?
IMHO if John knew how Yoko has been treating his family, what she's done to
them, he'd be turning over in his grave (if he had one.)
>It's just never seemed that much to ask, to me.
What about telling the truth, sharing information?
It would be an astonishing change of pace if you and others actually discussed
the ISSUES rather than me: My perceived intentions, motives, emotional state
and alleged lack of self-awareness.
Here's an assumption from me: None of the Yoko-apologists can refute anything
I've said so you've chosen another tact, namely attacking the messenger.
huzzlewhat
> What the hell is a digestive biscuit anyway? Sounds disgusting. I bet
> Yoko came up with name. (That's a joke.) -laura
Digestive biscuits are actually quite yummy. A thick graham-crackery type
cookie -- sort of like a graham cracker crust, but more solid. Just the
thing with a nice cuppa. Of course, even nicer are the chocolate
digestive biscuits, with one side of the biscuit coated with either milk
or "real" (dark) chocolate. You can find these in American grocery stores
now -- Carrs does a nice one, although they're much more expensive here
than they are in Britain. They're not called Digestive Biscuits, though,
I think they're called wheat somethingorothers ... I guess someone in the
marketing department decided that the name would sound ... um ...
disgusting ... to American consumers.
Hey, if someone took my last digestive biscuit, I'd be mad, too. And if
it was a real chocolate one, I *might* just hold a 30-year grudge over
it! ;-)
Hazel
--
The most fun you can have without doing anything
immoral, illegal, or unhygenic.
paramucho
>>> I make it my business because of my respect for John.
>>
>>I just can't relate to this at all.
>>
>>You assume you know John's wife better than he did himself,
>>because you've read some books. You assume you know more
>>than gossip, and truthfully, you don't.
>
>Your assumption could not be more wrong. Please don't take this the wrong way,
>but where are you getting this? Except for the first few sentences, a note
>about who Dan Richter is, and a short summary at the very end, that entire post
>was nothing but direct, word-for-word quotes from John's family and Jack
>Douglas who worked for both John and Yoko.
>
>Not my words; THEIR words.
Don't you understand that quotations can be assembled into a collage
that becomes an object in its own right? Your hate list worked not
because of the *individual* citations but because of the *accumulated*
affect. A classic example of the whole being greater than the sum of
it's parts.
Taken individually none of passages you quoted would have the same
affect.
Their words, but YOUR post and YOUR statement. It was titled "Things
*I* dislike".
>>And so, on the basis of gossip, you are compelled to "speak
>>the truth" out of your "respect for John", a man whose last
>>words, more or less, were "please don't trash my wife."
>
>Then take it up with Julian, Cyn, Jack, Julia Baird... Norman Birch died
>several years ago. Or address your comments to what THEY said, because their
>the ones who said those things. Not me.
>Don't shoot the messenger :-)
You are the person who cited their words. We don't know the context of
your quotes.
If you don't believe that what they had to say was valid then you
shouldn't quote them as "Things I dislike about Yoko".
It was your statement.
>>I don't see that as respectful at all.
>>
>>But then again, I believe that life is a lot more complex than
>>soap opera. Tuning in every week is not sufficient to grant one
>>an omniscient overview of the whole picture. This is but one
>>of many reasons why it is wiser to work on one's own weaknesses
>>than to obsess over what we may imagine to be our neighbors'.
>
>Why do you assume I don't work with my own weaknesses? I'd go into it more
>with you privately, but from what I see here, you'd twist anything I'd have to
>say.
>
>I did not twist anyone's words, nor did I make assumptions about what they
>said. I quoted them word-for-word. How much more reliable would you like it?
>
>I'm not obsessing.
I'm another who thinks you have an obsession here, no matter how well
you try to cloak it.
>I didn't imagine Yoko did those things. If you have reason to believe Jack
>Douglas, John's son, John's uncle, John's sister and John's ex-wife are lying,
>please elaborate. Because if you believe Yoko didn't do those things, by
>default you're calling these people liars.
You've said this line a number of times.
1. Every story has two sides to it.
2. The people you list may have been mistaken in part.
3. The people you list may have been imagining things.
There are many possibilities. But you take their word as gospel. You
write "I didn't imagine Yoko did those things".
The most interesting is that the people you list may have in fact been
(*gasp*) lying. Why is this so unimaginable?
And, of course, the other possibility is that some or all of the
accusations were entirely correct. I would still be aghast at your
assembled list in this case as well.
>>I cannot help but believe that John knew his wife one hell of a
>>lot better than we do. And he asked of us directly that we not
>>presume to trash her.
>
>Who's trashing Yoko? Did you read both posts? I thought I gave a balanced
>picture. Do you consider it gossip to say that Yoko paid her friend's medical
>bills, or to give examples of her sense of humor? If you're against gossip,
>why haven't you complained about that?
Your "balanced" picture is a lof of bullshit. You posted your second
list in a lame attempt to get out of the hole you had dug for yourself
a couple of days later. Anyway, it's a time-honored technique: "XXXX
is a fine person who did much for the community even though he/she
also ate children and sold his grandmother into slavery".
Don't be naive.
>It would be an astonishing change of pace if you and others actually discussed
>the ISSUES rather than me: My perceived intentions, motives, emotional state
>and alleged lack of self-awareness.
This is amazing.
We should discuss the ISSUES?
Who with?
The reaction to your stems mostly from YOUR REFUSAL to discuss the
issues (and don't bother saying you were available via e-mail). What
else can we discuss if you drop your pile of shit and then vacate the
scene?
I am not the least interested in your perceived-anything. But what
else can we do. I don't think I am alone in being amazed that an
experienced newsgroupie such as yourself would post such an attack on
a third-party and then refuse to take responsibility.
>Here's an assumption from me: None of the Yoko-apologists can refute anything
>I've said so you've chosen another tact, namely attacking the messenger.
I am not a Yoko-apologist. I neither attack nor do I praise Yoko Ono.
The only reason I think about her at all is because of never-ending
attacks which take place on her, day in, day out, in this forum.
Quantity and repetition do matter. Your post was just another in the
tens of thousands which have addressed her sins, her frailties, her
character weaknesses, her errors, her misdemeanours.
Why is Yoko singled out for this treatment?
Why not some other member of the Beatle family?
What is special about her?
Why don't I ever expect to see a list from you about "Things I dislike
about Linda" or "Things I dislike about Barbara" or "Things I dislike
about Olivia"?
In fact, one of your points has already been refuted. As to the rest:
I am 52 years old. I've heard most of the things you've cited from
Lennon's families said in many other family situations by relatives.
Particularly in Europe. As to Jack Douglas being an unbiased witness:
my experience is that people who end up suing each other in court are
quite often biased. As for your snippets out of newspaper reports: it
is my experience that these are often erroneous.
But to repeat myself: how were we to refute your quotes if you were
not available. And, in any case, your post had its affect simply by
the bulk of it.
The fact that you do not recognise many of the points I've made here,
which others also make, indicates to me that you have a blind-spot
here.
--
ian
|--paramucho------[para...@hammo.com]---[www.beathoven.com]------|
|----[alt.ato]---[alt.non.sequitur]---[rec.music.beatles]----------|
Amaranth56
>>>because you've read some books. You assume you know more
>>>than gossip, and truthfully, you don't.
>>
>>Your assumption could not be more wrong. Please don't take this the wrong
>way,
>>but where are you getting this? Except for the first few sentences, a note
>>about who Dan Richter is, and a short summary at the very end, that entire
>post
>>was nothing but direct, word-for-word quotes from John's family and Jack
>>Douglas who worked for both John and Yoko.
>>
>>Not my words; THEIR words.
>
>Don't you understand that quotations can be assembled into a collage
>that becomes an object in its own right? Your hate list worked not
>because of the *individual* citations but because of the *accumulated*
>affect. A classic example of the whole being greater than the sum of
>it's parts.
If my first post was a "hate list," then my second post was a "love list,"
right? Fair is fair.
You forget that I was ASKED why Yoko's behavior bothered me. I was not asked
why I liked her.
As I said, looking back I should have put them together, or put the positive
things first. But I did post both, and you've had plenty of time to read both.
>Taken individually none of passages you quoted would have the same
>affect.
Again, I was asked why Yoko's actions bother me. I was answer that question.
>Their words, but YOUR post and YOUR statement. It was titled
> "Things *I* dislike".
Exactly! First, not "What I dislike about Yoko" but what she's DONE that I
dislike. Also, me personally. Not some irrevocable decree. My personal
opinion. Perhaps that came across differently to you and not as I intended.
>>>And so, on the basis of gossip, you are compelled to "speak
>>>the truth" out of your "respect for John", a man whose last
>>>words, more or less, were "please don't trash my wife."
>>
>>Then take it up with Julian, Cyn, Jack, Julia Baird... Norman Birch died
>>several years ago. Or address your comments to what THEY said,
>>because they're
>>the ones who said those things. Not me.
>
>>Don't shoot the messenger :-)
>
>
>You are the person who cited their words. We don't know the context of
>your quotes.
The sources for most of what I quoted has been posted in rmb. If you neglected
to read these interview, please don't blame me. These aren't obscure sources
decades old.
Apparently, you've already formed an opinion about me that a boulder wouldn't
put a dent in. I did my best to excerpt the quotes fairly. I left out "um"s
and "uh"s -- things like that. Norman Birch's interview was heavily edited,
but if you complained about what I did quote from him, you'd *really* be upset
with what I left out.
>If you don't believe that what they had to say was valid then you
>shouldn't quote them as "Things I dislike about Yoko".
WHOA!!!!! I most certainly DID NOT call the thread that! I called it "Yoko:
What she's done that I dislike." What she has DONE. Not things I dislike
about HER. These were not personal attributes, but actions.
Look Elliot, I know I said I wasn't as smart as you seem to think, but I'm not
quite that stupid, either. You can't pull that over on me.
>It was your statement.
It was NOT. The thread is there for all to read.
<snip>
>I'm another who thinks you have an obsession here, no matter how well
>you try to cloak it.
I know how I feel. You don't. I know obsession. Yoko is not one. Defending
myself when I've been wrongly accused is coming close to an obsession.
Not that that will make any difference to you. Your mind is set in stone.
Yes, I know. You'll say mine is about Yoko. But that's not true.
>>I didn't imagine Yoko did those things. If you have reason to believe Jack
>>Douglas, John's son, John's uncle, John's sister and John's ex-wife are
>lying,
>>please elaborate. Because if you believe Yoko didn't do those things, by
>>default you're calling these people liars.
>
>You've said this line a number of times.
>
>1. Every story has two sides to it.
>2. The people you list may have been mistaken in part.
>3. The people you list may have been imagining things.
May have, may have, may have. Where's your proof? Do you even have evidence?
Or are you just spouting out any old thing to make your case? I suppolied
quotes from people who have been directly affected by Yoko's actions. In
theory, you are correct. But in fact? Where's your evidence?
Remember, I did say I would re-think the Bible incident after reading someone's
account. He gave evidence. Where is yours?
>There are many possibilities. But you take their word as gospel.
No, not gospel. I take their claims as fact until they're proven wrong. They
have not been proven wrong.
>You write "I didn't imagine Yoko did those things".
The public has been told Yoko did those things by John's son, John's uncle,
John's sister, John's ex-wife, John's producer. Until there's evidence to the
contrary, their word is good enough for me. Why is John's family not good
enough for you? ARE YOU SAYING THEY'RE LIARS?
>The most interesting is that the people you list may have in fact been
>(*gasp*) lying. Why is this so unimaginable?
It's not. But show me proof that they're lying. Where is your evidence?
>And, of course, the other possibility is that some or all of the
>accusations were entirely correct. I would still be aghast at your
>assembled list in this case as well.
Why? I've written similar posts before and you've never been "aghast."
Interesting that you're shocked so easily, Ian.
And selectively.
>>>I cannot help but believe that John knew his wife one hell of a
>>>lot better than we do. And he asked of us directly that we not
>>>presume to trash her.
Let me add here that Cynthia was John's wife, too. And what about John's
sister? John's uncle? His sister was born when John was a child (I don't
recall her birthdate offhand), and John's uncle certainly knew John all his
life. Don't you think they know John?
>>Who's trashing Yoko? Did you read both posts? I thought I gave a balanced
>>picture. Do you consider it gossip to say that Yoko paid her friend's
>medical
>>bills, or to give examples of her sense of humor? If you're against gossip,
>>why haven't you complained about that?
>
>Your "balanced" picture is a lof of bullshit. You posted your second
>list in a lame attempt to get out of the hole you had dug for yourself
>a couple of days later.
Wrong. And what hole? It was posted the VERY NEXT DAY, Elliot. Get your
facts straight.
The way you've twisted and misquoted makes me wonder about all your other
posts, many of which impressed me so I printed them out to read again. Now I
wonder. You don't even remember the name of the thread, or when I posted it.
>Anyway, it's a time-honored technique: "XXXX
>is a fine person who did much for the community even though he/she
>also ate children and sold his grandmother into slavery".
Please re-read what I wrote at the beginning and what I quoted by NORMAN Seaman
about Yoko being an extraordinarily complex individual; how contradictory she
is.
>Don't be naive.
I try not to. Please stop reading my posts so selectively, conveniently
"forgetting" what doesn't match your preconception of me.
>>It would be an astonishing change of pace if you and others actually
>discussed
>>the ISSUES rather than me: My perceived intentions, motives,
>> emotional state
>>and alleged lack of self-awareness.
>
>This is amazing.
>
>We should discuss the ISSUES?
Uh, yeah. If you want. Certainly they're infinitely more interesting than
your delusions about me.
>Who with?
Each other. Whom else?
>The reaction to your stems mostly from YOUR REFUSAL to discuss the
>issues (and don't bother saying you were available via e-mail). What
>else can we discuss if you drop your pile of shit and then vacate the
>scene?
I chose not to read the responses for a couple of days because I knew what I
was in for. And you didn't disappoint.
And you did e-mail me -- and DEMANDED that I not reply. How strange.
>I am not the least interested in your perceived-anything. But what
>else can we do. I don't think I am alone in being amazed that an
>experienced newsgroupie such as yourself would post such an attack on
>a third-party and then refuse to take responsibility.
It was no attack. I supplied facts, some of which had already been posted
here.
When I noted that something George said seemed snotty, no one got upset.
People said that he probably said it to be funny, that reading it in text you
don't get a sense of tone or facial expression. But say something negative
about Yoko??! I should be drawn and quartered!
>>Here's an assumption from me: None of the Yoko-apologists can refute
>anything
>>I've said so you've chosen another tact, namely attacking the messenger.
>
>I am not a Yoko-apologist. I neither attack nor do I praise Yoko Ono.
>The only reason I think about her at all is because of never-ending
>attacks which take place on her, day in, day out, in this forum.
I have never attacked Yoko. I've said negative -- but TRUE -- things about
her. I've also said positive things about her, and I don't mean just the
second post. Granted, more positive than negative. But never an attack. Did
you see me participate in the recent thread whose title I won't even repeat?
No. When it came up the last time, I said it was ridiculous. This time I
chose to refrain.
You have a very slanted view of me, Ian.
>Quantity and repetition do matter. Your post was just another in the
>tens of thousands which have addressed her sins, her frailties, her
>character weaknesses, her errors, her misdemeanours.
And I have also mentioned her generosity, things I like about her art and other
positive qualities.
You read my posts much too selectively.
>Why is Yoko singled out for this treatment?
She's not. See above re George. I've said many negative things about John as
well. I don't deny that I've said more negative things about Yoko. It's
because I don't like the way she treats her dead husband's family. IMO some of
her actions have been disgraceful. Trying to evict an old man from the home
his nephew -- her husband -- bought for him so he'd never have to worry about a
roof over his head. And she tries to throw him out on the street. I repeat,
Julia Baird and Cynthia confirmed this.
It's like something out of Dickens.
>Why not some other member of the Beatle family?
See above.
>What is special about her?
::rolling my eyes::
>Why don't I ever expect to see a list from you about "Things I dislike
>about Linda" or "Things I dislike about Barbara" or "Things I dislike
>about Olivia"?
After reading as much as there is about Olivia, I see nothing to make me
believe that she is anything but loving and devoted to George. Why, what have
you read?
As for Linda, offhand the only negative things I can think of came from the
Laines, and I don't think them reliable.
>In fact, one of your points has already been refuted.
Which I ackowledged in my previous post to you.
>As to the rest:
>I am 52 years old. I've heard most of the things you've cited from
>Lennon's families said in many other family situations by relatives.
>Particularly in Europe. As to Jack Douglas being an unbiased witness:
>my experience is that people who end up suing each other in court are
>quite often biased. As for your snippets out of newspaper reports: it
>is my experience that these are often erroneous.
You're right. I should have quoted more of the Beatlefan interview. Jack
Douglas praised Yoko as well. I guess we can't believe that, though, can we?
The only newspaper report was about the Bible incident. The only sentence I
omitted was a quote from a representative from a Catholic organization. You
can imagine that it would have only added strength to the post.
>But to repeat myself: how were we to refute your quotes if you were
>not available.
I read the posts. Only one person refuted anything, and, for the third time,
in my last post I acknowledge that.
> And, in any case, your post had its affect simply by
>the bulk of it.
The irony is overwhelming.
>The fact that you do not recognise many of the points I've made here,
>which others also make, indicates to me that you have a blind-spot
>here.
Please be specific.
You twisted around the title of the first thread so it sounded exactly the
OPPOSITE of what I intended.
You said I posted about Yoko's positive qualities 2 days later, when in fact it
was the next day.
First you use the fact that I didn't read the responses to reprimand me, then
you say I posted the second post only to get myself out of a hole. How could I
have known a hole existed had I not read the posts? Make up your mind.
Three times you neglected to acknowledge that I said I would re-think the Bible
incident.
Either you've never read any of my previous posts, or you read them with bias
and selectivity. You don't have the full picture.
Now tell me again who has the blind spot.
Amaranth56
>Chapman........who we all can agree, wrecked 'our' dream. If we look at
>in a very simplistic way (eg the number of hate posts re Yoko versus the
>number re Chapman) then Yoko must be hated more.
My take is that Chapman is not sane. Yoko is, and can be discussed in terms of
a normal person.
Also, I don't think I could express what I feel towards Chapman in words. It
goes far beyond that.
>That is VERY strange take on the whole thing. Very strange indeed.
>
>PS - do those people who hate Yoko all live in NY? I know Ric does, as
>does Diane. Nylon where do you hail from?
I don't hate Yoko. I can't think of anyone I hate. I'd have to go back about
14 years to think of someone I once hated. Guess I shouldn't speak for him,
but I don't believe Ric hates Yoko either. At least, I don't get that from his
posts.
>PS 1 - just to repeat an earlier thingie, I have always loved reading
>Diane's posts....but on this subject, we have to agree to disagree. :0)
I'll forgive you, Will :-) (Just kidding, folks!)
Tom
>Of course not. By the same token, does being a celebrity excuse any and
all
>behavior, no matter how atrocious?
>
strangers to judge your behavior as "atrocious" without knowing both sides
of the story?
Tom
>As to Jack Douglas being an unbiased witness:
>my experience is that people who end up suing each other in court are
>quite often biased.
Two observations about the Douglas quotes:
1. He shows his memory to be faulty twice in that interview. Once when he
says that he was working with John during Paul's arrest, and again in the
quoted passage where he says that Yoko's demos were done with Elephant's
Memory. (Ironic, isn't it?)
2. Fred Seaman's book gives the impression that was already planning to make
the album a duet before Douglas was hired. (He doesn't give dates, but he
has John enthusiastic about the idea and saying something to the effect that
the album will be the first Rock and Roll soap opera before he talks about
the decision to hire Douglas.)
Tom
>>There are many possibilities. But you take their word as gospel.
>
>No, not gospel. I take their claims as fact until they're proven wrong.
They
>have not been proven wrong.
>
It's difficult to be fair to everyone in this situation. By being fair to
the people you quoted, assuming them to be honest until they're shown
otherwise, you're condemming Yoko as "guilty until proven innocent."
In the case of of her sabotaging Julian's career, she has said that his
accusations are untrue so you're giving Julian a benefit of the doubt that
you're not willing to give Yoko. (remember, Julian said he had proof, but no
one has ever seen it.)
In that case, I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of it is Julian
rationalizing in his own mind the fact that his music isn't as successful as
he'd like. (I think you've said yourself that he tends to deflect
responsibility for his own situation onto other people.)
>The public has been told Yoko did those things by John's son, John's uncle,
>John's sister, John's ex-wife, John's producer. Until there's evidence to
the
>contrary, their word is good enough for me. Why is John's family not good
>enough for you? ARE YOU SAYING THEY'RE LIARS?
>
Why not? You say the same thing about his widow. You keep going back to
this, but saying that a person's statements are incorrect isn't the same
thing as saying that they're lying.
>
But say something negative
>about Yoko??! I should be drawn and quartered!
>
You should be drawn by Yoko. Have you ever seen her drawings? They're very
nice.
>As for Linda, offhand the only negative things I can think of came from the
>Laines, and I don't think them reliable.
>
Especially in Guiliano's use of them as sources, since they've complained
about being misquoted. (From what I've been told, quotes that were
attributed to JoJo Laine were completely made up without her knowledge and
that her problem is that she's too careless with who she allows to use her
name.) Guiliano mentions some stories that show her in a negative light, but
he's evidently not very reliable.
>You said I posted about Yoko's positive qualities 2 days later, when in
fact it
>was the next day.
>
I think I saw it at least two days after the first post. Slow servers,
perhaps?
paramucho
>>Don't you understand that quotations can be assembled into a collage
>>that becomes an object in its own right? Your hate list worked not
>>because of the *individual* citations but because of the *accumulated*
>>affect. A classic example of the whole being greater than the sum of
>>it's parts.
>
>If my first post was a "hate list," then my second post was a "love list,"
>right? Fair is fair.
You're trying to be smart rather than honest. Yes, your first list was
a "hate list". Your second list was an attempt to back out.
>You forget that I was ASKED why Yoko's behavior bothered me. I was not asked
>why I liked her.
>
>As I said, looking back I should have put them together, or put the positive
>things first. But I did post both, and you've had plenty of time to read both.
That is entirely irrelevant. Why you posted is your business. I am
responding to one of the worst attacks made on an individual that I
have seen in the RMB in the 14 months I have been here. Other posts
are irrelevant.
>>Taken individually none of passages you quoted would have the same
>>affect.
>
>Again, I was asked why Yoko's actions bother me. I was answer that question.
Nonsense. You were posting a "hate list" that you already had prepared
and had posted elsewhere. You were also not willing to answer
responses to that list in the newsgroup. The introduction to your
"hate list" said nothing about answering requests from other
individuals (not that that would have altered my response).
>>Their words, but YOUR post and YOUR statement. It was titled
>> "Things *I* dislike".
>
>Exactly! First, not "What I dislike about Yoko" but what she's DONE that I
>dislike. Also, me personally. Not some irrevocable decree. My personal
>opinion. Perhaps that came across differently to you and not as I intended.
The difference between the two is less than semantic. It's irrelevant.
It's a broadside attack on an individual. Period.
>>>>And so, on the basis of gossip, you are compelled to "speak
>>>>the truth" out of your "respect for John", a man whose last
>>>>words, more or less, were "please don't trash my wife."
>>>
>>>Then take it up with Julian, Cyn, Jack, Julia Baird... Norman Birch died
>>>several years ago. Or address your comments to what THEY said,
>>>because they're
>>>the ones who said those things. Not me.
>>
>>>Don't shoot the messenger :-)
>>
>>
>>You are the person who cited their words. We don't know the context of
>>your quotes.
>
>The sources for most of what I quoted has been posted in rmb. If you neglected
>to read these interview, please don't blame me. These aren't obscure sources
>decades old.
Your post stands alone. In an ephemeral medium such as a newsgroup you
can't expect to make that kind of excuse.
>Apparently, you've already formed an opinion about me that a boulder wouldn't
>put a dent in. I did my best to excerpt the quotes fairly. I left out "um"s
>and "uh"s -- things like that. Norman Birch's interview was heavily edited,
>but if you complained about what I did quote from him, you'd *really* be upset
>with what I left out.
I had formed no opinion of you. I am not upset with Norman Birch or
his interview. You miss my point entirely.
>>If you don't believe that what they had to say was valid then you
>>shouldn't quote them as "Things I dislike about Yoko".
>
>WHOA!!!!! I most certainly DID NOT call the thread that! I called it "Yoko:
>What she's done that I dislike." What she has DONE. Not things I dislike
>about HER. These were not personal attributes, but actions.
>
>Look Elliot, I know I said I wasn't as smart as you seem to think, but I'm not
>quite that stupid, either. You can't pull that over on me.
My name is not Elliot.
The difference between "the things I dislike about Yoko" and the
"things Yoko has done that I dislike" is zero, zilch. Don't pull that
crap.
>>It was your statement.
>
>It was NOT. The thread is there for all to read.
The collage was yours.
><snip>
<snip>
>>>I didn't imagine Yoko did those things. If you have reason to believe Jack
>>>Douglas, John's son, John's uncle, John's sister and John's ex-wife are
>>lying,
>>>please elaborate. Because if you believe Yoko didn't do those things, by
>>>default you're calling these people liars.
>>
>>You've said this line a number of times.
>>
>>1. Every story has two sides to it.
>>2. The people you list may have been mistaken in part.
>>3. The people you list may have been imagining things.
>
>May have, may have, may have. Where's your proof? Do you even have evidence?
>Or are you just spouting out any old thing to make your case? I suppolied
>quotes from people who have been directly affected by Yoko's actions. In
>theory, you are correct. But in fact? Where's your evidence?
>
>Remember, I did say I would re-think the Bible incident after reading someone's
>account. He gave evidence. Where is yours?
A "hate list" is a "hate list" because it is also impossible to answer
in full. You listed thirty or so sources. What am I supposed to do -
spend a month looking them all up.
>>There are many possibilities. But you take their word as gospel.
>
>No, not gospel. I take their claims as fact until they're proven wrong. They
>have not been proven wrong.
>
>>You write "I didn't imagine Yoko did those things".
>
>The public has been told Yoko did those things by John's son, John's uncle,
>John's sister, John's ex-wife, John's producer. Until there's evidence to the
>contrary, their word is good enough for me. Why is John's family not good
>enough for you? ARE YOU SAYING THEY'RE LIARS?
Shock Horror Shock. Why the uppercase shouting? Who is to know who is
telling the truth? You? Me? This is the third time you've said that.
Are they holy because they are John's blood relations? Why do you say
is "John's family" not good enough for me? Do you think that Yoko is
not John's family?
Why do you say "why is John's family not good enough for you?" Do they
get some special status that I'm not aware of?
Having family and business arguments about money and things of value
has a long, long history. Aren't you aware of this?
>>The most interesting is that the people you list may have in fact been
>>(*gasp*) lying. Why is this so unimaginable?
>
>It's not. But show me proof that they're lying. Where is your evidence?
I have neither evidence to show that they are lying or not lying.
I asked you whether it was unimaginable that they are lying. You often
seem to imply that as an impossibility. Am I correct?
>>And, of course, the other possibility is that some or all of the
>>accusations were entirely correct. I would still be aghast at your
>>assembled list in this case as well.
>
>Why? I've written similar posts before and you've never been "aghast."
>Interesting that you're shocked so easily, Ian.
>
>And selectively.
I don't read all your posts Amaranth. That's the nature of newsgroups.
I would have thought someone of your experience here would be aware of
that.
Why do you think I read you posts selectively.
I've not seen any post similar to this one of yours before.
Thus I restate my point: I would still be aghast even if all your
accusations were correct.
>>>>I cannot help but believe that John knew his wife one hell of a
>>>>lot better than we do. And he asked of us directly that we not
>>>>presume to trash her.
>
>Let me add here that Cynthia was John's wife, too. And what about John's
>sister? John's uncle? His sister was born when John was a child (I don't
>recall her birthdate offhand), and John's uncle certainly knew John all his
>life. Don't you think they know John?
You are now answering someone who is not Ian and presumably not
Elliot. I guess it's Bongo.
>>>Who's trashing Yoko? Did you read both posts? I thought I gave a balanced
>>>picture. Do you consider it gossip to say that Yoko paid her friend's
>>medical
>>>bills, or to give examples of her sense of humor? If you're against gossip,
>>>why haven't you complained about that?
>>
>>Your "balanced" picture is a lof of bullshit. You posted your second
>>list in a lame attempt to get out of the hole you had dug for yourself
>>a couple of days later.
>
>Wrong. And what hole? It was posted the VERY NEXT DAY, Elliot. Get your
>facts straight.
I am not Elliot. I am Ian.
I examined the posts. Yes, it was less than two days later that you
posted. Timezones differences made it appear to be more than a day.
However, that does not alter my point.
>The way you've twisted and misquoted makes me wonder about all your other
>posts, many of which impressed me so I printed them out to read again. Now I
>wonder. You don't even remember the name of the thread, or when I posted it.
Excuse me, that's hard to determine when you don't even seem to know
who you are addressing. I may be confused at times but I don't think
I've gone multiple personality quite yet.
I do not believe that I have twisted or misquoted you.
>>Anyway, it's a time-honored technique: "XXXX
>>is a fine person who did much for the community even though he/she
>>also ate children and sold his grandmother into slavery".
>
>Please re-read what I wrote at the beginning and what I quoted by NORMAN Seaman
>about Yoko being an extraordinarily complex individual; how contradictory she
>is.
It took me ages to understand what you are saying here. If I
understand you correctly then you have reached a new pinnacle of
Yoko-bashing. You say she is very fine person and a total arsehole all
at the same time.
>>Don't be naive.
>
>I try not to. Please stop reading my posts so selectively, conveniently
>"forgetting" what doesn't match your preconception of me.
I am addressing a single post here Amaranth. Where have I been
selective?
>>>It would be an astonishing change of pace if you and others actually
>>discussed
>>>the ISSUES rather than me: My perceived intentions, motives,
>>> emotional state
>>>and alleged lack of self-awareness.
>>
>>This is amazing.
>>
>>We should discuss the ISSUES?
>
>Uh, yeah. If you want. Certainly they're infinitely more interesting than
>your delusions about me.
>
>>Who with?
>
>Each other. Whom else?
Now you really are out on a limb. The point is a little lost in the
cascade here, so I will restate it:
1. You said we should discuss the issues rather than you.
2. I reminded you that you refused to discuss the issues.
3. Your response is that we should have discussed the issues with each
other.
Your mask is wearing a little thin here.
>>The reaction to your stems mostly from YOUR REFUSAL to discuss the
>>issues (and don't bother saying you were available via e-mail). What
>>else can we discuss if you drop your pile of shit and then vacate the
>>scene?
>
>I chose not to read the responses for a couple of days because I knew what I
>was in for. And you didn't disappoint.
>
>And you did e-mail me -- and DEMANDED that I not reply. How strange.
Now you're playing games for sure.
1. You posted your pile of shit and said you wouldn't read the thread.
2. I responded in RMB. I also sent you and e-mail response so that you
could read it and asked you not to respond in e-mail. Here is
precisely what I wrote:
>I'm e-mailing this to you as well as posting it, but I don't want an
>e-mail reply.
You're playing games Amaranth.
>>I am not the least interested in your perceived-anything. But what
>>else can we do. I don't think I am alone in being amazed that an
>>experienced newsgroupie such as yourself would post such an attack on
>>a third-party and then refuse to take responsibility.
>
>It was no attack. I supplied facts, some of which had already been posted
>here.
>
>When I noted that something George said seemed snotty, no one got upset.
>People said that he probably said it to be funny, that reading it in text you
>don't get a sense of tone or facial expression. But say something negative
>about Yoko??! I should be drawn and quartered!
You really don't listen or you play games. I have made it quite clear
that the objectionable feature was the size of your hate list and your
refusal to be responsible for it in the forum.
I have treated your individual remarks regarding Yoko and George in a
totally consistent manner.
>>>Here's an assumption from me: None of the Yoko-apologists can refute
>>anything
>>>I've said so you've chosen another tact, namely attacking the messenger.
>>
>>I am not a Yoko-apologist. I neither attack nor do I praise Yoko Ono.
>>The only reason I think about her at all is because of never-ending
>>attacks which take place on her, day in, day out, in this forum.
>
>I have never attacked Yoko. I've said negative -- but TRUE -- things about
>her. I've also said positive things about her, and I don't mean just the
>second post. Granted, more positive than negative. But never an attack. Did
>you see me participate in the recent thread whose title I won't even repeat?
>No. When it came up the last time, I said it was ridiculous. This time I
>chose to refrain.
You do not know whether the things you've said are true or not. You
did not note any form of defence in any of the cases. At least of your
points has been shown to be untrue. Many of your points were taken
uncritically from newspaper reports.
Together, as a collage, and in their entirety, your list becomes a
"hate list".
As to not participating in this or that list: so what?
>You have a very slanted view of me, Ian.
I have a view of your "hate list". I don't know you at all.
>>Quantity and repetition do matter. Your post was just another in the
>>tens of thousands which have addressed her sins, her frailties, her
>>character weaknesses, her errors, her misdemeanours.
>
>And I have also mentioned her generosity, things I like about her art and other
>positive qualities.
>
>You read my posts much too selectively.
I address your "hate list". Quantity and repetition do matter.
>>Why is Yoko singled out for this treatment?
>
>She's not. See above re George. I've said many negative things about John as
>well. I don't deny that I've said more negative things about Yoko. It's
>because I don't like the way she treats her dead husband's family. IMO some of
>her actions have been disgraceful. Trying to evict an old man from the home
>his nephew -- her husband -- bought for him so he'd never have to worry about a
>roof over his head. And she tries to throw him out on the street. I repeat,
>Julia Baird and Cynthia confirmed this.
You are being cute again. I am obviously referring to the overwhelming
quanity of Yoko-bashing threads in this newsgroup. George and John
suffer nothing in comparison to those threads.
>It's like something out of Dickens.
>
>>Why not some other member of the Beatle family?
>
>See above.
>
>>What is special about her?
>
>::rolling my eyes::
Again you use a cute remark to avoid a major point. You have read the
threads and you know that it has been said by a number of posters that
the objection is to the never-ending onslaught of anti-Yoko posts, of
which yours was a great example.
So, I ask, what is special about her and all you can do is roll your
eyes.
Why do you think she comes in for so much bashing?
>>Why don't I ever expect to see a list from you about "Things I dislike
>>about Linda" or "Things I dislike about Barbara" or "Things I dislike
>>about Olivia"?
>
>After reading as much as there is about Olivia, I see nothing to make me
>believe that she is anything but loving and devoted to George. Why, what have
>you read?
>
>As for Linda, offhand the only negative things I can think of came from the
>Laines, and I don't think them reliable.
Why don't you think them reliable?
>>In fact, one of your points has already been refuted.
>
>Which I ackowledged in my previous post to you.
We were told that to deny your evidence was to call Lennon's relatives
liars.
>>As to the rest:
>>I am 52 years old. I've heard most of the things you've cited from
>>Lennon's families said in many other family situations by relatives.
>>Particularly in Europe. As to Jack Douglas being an unbiased witness:
>>my experience is that people who end up suing each other in court are
>>quite often biased. As for your snippets out of newspaper reports: it
>>is my experience that these are often erroneous.
>
>You're right. I should have quoted more of the Beatlefan interview. Jack
>Douglas praised Yoko as well. I guess we can't believe that, though, can we?
Why not?
>The only newspaper report was about the Bible incident. The only sentence I
>omitted was a quote from a representative from a Catholic organization. You
>can imagine that it would have only added strength to the post.
>
>>But to repeat myself: how were we to refute your quotes if you were
>>not available.
>
>I read the posts. Only one person refuted anything, and, for the third time,
>in my last post I acknowledge that.
>
>> And, in any case, your post had its affect simply by
>>the bulk of it.
>
>The irony is overwhelming.
Again you try to avoid a point with a cute remark.
The fact is that your post did have its affect simply by it's bulk.
>>The fact that you do not recognise many of the points I've made here,
>>which others also make, indicates to me that you have a blind-spot
>>here.
>
>Please be specific.
And be even more bulky in responding?
>You twisted around the title of the first thread so it sounded exactly the
>OPPOSITE of what I intended.
Huh?
>You said I posted about Yoko's positive qualities 2 days later, when in fact it
>was the next day.
See above.
>First you use the fact that I didn't read the responses to reprimand me, then
>you say I posted the second post only to get myself out of a hole. How could I
>have known a hole existed had I not read the posts? Make up your mind.
Stop playing games. I reprimanded you because you *said* you wouldn't
read the responses. You really are being cute here and that must be
obvious to any sentient human being.
>Three times you neglected to acknowledge that I said I would re-think the Bible
>incident.
Why should I acknowledge that?
>Either you've never read any of my previous posts, or you read them with bias
>and selectivity. You don't have the full picture.
>
>Now tell me again who has the blind spot.
For the most part I address a single post of yours and the dialogue
surrounding that post.
Hammerwheel Jack
(Amaranth56) writes:
>To you it's absurb. To me it's natural curiosity.
>
>Warning! Broad generalization follows!
>
>This attitude of "It's none of your business" seems to be shared, by and
>large,
>by men. Women love learning about the lives of those they admire. When
>Julian
>goes on national television, show after show, and tells us what has gone on,
>am
>I supposed to shut my mind and mouth, and ignore what he says? The situation
>with Norman Birch was publicized in major British publications. IOW, it was
>news. Are we not allowed to discuss news? Cynthia and Julia Baird gave an
>extensive interview in "Hello!" magazine. Shall we just make believe we
>didn't
>read it?
I don't know for sure if the distinction I'm making is one shared by Nick, Ian
and
some others who generally seem to see this the why I do, but I don't think the
issue for them is your level of interest. I know it's not, for me. It's what
you choose to do with it.
I, too, find fascination in the private lives of certain people, or in the
public behavior of certain others.
In the latter catagory, I would put people who's art I admire, but whose
political actions make me cringe. This is actually something that could
potentially impact my life, depending on the person, what they do, politically,
and how much pull he or she has. But even in those cases, for the most part I
keep it to myself.
For the former catagory, private lives, I may have the same level of interest
as you, or as many of the others here. So I don't object to that - and I don't
see anything here that indicates that the others who are questioning your
behavior have a problem with you (or many others) having a particular interest
in what Yoko has done in her life.
The line that I think has been crossed, and not just by you, is the one making
public your feelings about this person who has never done anything to you. What
purpose is served. You said someone asked you. That could have been shared in
e-mail, couldn't it? Like talking privately to someone on the phone, rather
than publishing it as an ad in the local paper.
In other words, I don't begrudge you, or anyone else, having a certain level of
fascination with Yoko, or with anyone else you choose to find interesting. But
that is simply not the same as posting a list of behaviors that you don't like.
That's a huge step beyond finding someone's life interesting.
By the way, I do consider my own fascination with private lives of strangers to
be more than a little inappropriate. I find it to be a weakness in myself, one
I share with many many people, and one which is not nearly as strong as it once
was for me, because I recognized it as such.
While I agree with you that there is a gender related difference in the general
area of interest in private lives, I don't think that's the issue here at all.
No one's telling you you shouldn't be interested. No one has suggested, I don't
think, that there's a reason for you to stop finding interest in anyone's life
you choose to. It's a particularly American thing, to, witness the success of
Entertainment Tonight, etc.
The issue here is of taking that interest and getting on a soapbox in public
with it.
Can you imagine if John Q. Citizen bought ten minutes on Entertainment Tonight,
with the purpose of listing, in detail, every negative behavior, with quotes,
that has been reported about, say, Arnold Schwartzenegger's private life?
First, it probably wouldn't be allowed, but if it was, there would be quite an
outcry. Not about Mr. Citizen's right to be fascinated by Arnold's life, but
about the questionable nature of going public with such a list AND what the
motivation was.
That's the difference, in my opinion.
Bob Purse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hold it, you guys! - This is a Rhythm and Blues number - You gotta be careful
or somebody's liable to understand what you're singing about! You want THAT to
happen?" - Stan Freberg, 1955
CYBERFLOYD
Tonight,
with the purpose of listing, in detail, every negative behavior, with quotes,
that has been reported about, say, Arnold Schwartzenegger's private life?
First, it probably wouldn't be allowed, but if it was, there would be quite an
outcry. Not about Mr. Citizen's right to be fascinated by Arnold's life, but
about the questionable nature of going public with such a list AND what the
motivation was.
That's the difference, in my opinion.
Bob Purse >>
It wouldn't happen on Entertainment Tonight because it's a commercial show
which relies on products Arnold Schwartzenegger and others like him make.
If John Q. Citizen wants to write an entire book about Arnold with a negative
slant he's more than entitled to do it. If he doesn't want to go to the trouble
to write a book and he can find a Schwartzegger newsgroup to post in, that's in
no way inappropriate.
Don Rife
Hammerwheel Jack <rasm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991002181333...@ngol01.aol.com...
>
>
> Can you imagine if John Q. Citizen bought ten minutes on Entertainment
Tonight,
> with the purpose of listing, in detail, every negative behavior, with
quotes,
> that has been reported about, say, Arnold Schwartzenegger's private life?
> First, it probably wouldn't be allowed, but if it was, there would be
quite an
> outcry. Not about Mr. Citizen's right to be fascinated by Arnold's life,
but
> about the questionable nature of going public with such a list AND what
the
> motivation was.
>
> That's the difference, in my opinion.
>
> Bob Purse
>
It wouldn't be on Entertainment Tonight, it would be on the Gossip Show on
E. They'd make a living doing it. They'd be called a gossip columnist.
Amaranth56
>making
>public your feelings about this person who has never done anything to you.
>What
>purpose is served. You said someone asked you. That could have been shared in
>e-mail, couldn't it? Like talking privately to someone on the phone, rather
>than publishing it as an ad in the local paper.
It was asked in a post; I answered in a post. Nick and I also wrote privately,
but he and someone else (whom I don't want to drag into this) asked in posts.
The purpose? To share knowledge and information.
>In other words, I don't begrudge you, or anyone else, having a certain level
>of
>fascination with Yoko, or with anyone else you choose to find interesting.
>But
>that is simply not the same as posting a list of behaviors that you don't
>like.
>That's a huge step beyond finding someone's life interesting.
What kind of forum is this were we don't share information and discuss things?
Once again, this is about me, and not the issues. How about sticking to the
topic?
>While I agree with you that there is a gender related difference in the
>general
>area of interest in private lives, I don't think that's the issue here at
>all.
>No one's telling you you shouldn't be interested. No one has suggested, I
>don't
>think, that there's a reason for you to stop finding interest in anyone's
>life
>you choose to. It's a particularly American thing, to, witness the success of
>Entertainment Tonight, etc.
>The issue here is of taking that interest and getting on a soapbox in public
>with it.
I didn't get on a soapbox. John's family and a friend made public certain
statements. I shared them with this discussion forum.
>Can you imagine if John Q. Citizen bought ten minutes on Entertainment
>Tonight,
>with the purpose of listing, in detail, every negative behavior, with quotes,
>that has been reported about, say, Arnold Schwartzenegger's private life?
>First, it probably wouldn't be allowed, but if it was, there would be quite
>an
>outcry. Not about Mr. Citizen's right to be fascinated by Arnold's life, but
>about the questionable nature of going public with such a list AND what the
>motivation was.
>
>That's the difference, in my opinion.
Fine. Here's my take on it.
It's unfortunate that Yoko can't be discussed rationally. It seems some here
have a frozen image of the Yoko of 30 years ago, helpless and victimized, and
Lord help anyone who dares tarnish that image. You'd rather believe that these
people, John's family and friends, are liars than entertain the possibility
that what they say is true.
I read somewhere that if you show someone evidence of a truth they don't want
to see, and they don't love truth deeply, they'll turn on you with some form of
manipulation such as anger to stop you from presenting your information,
attacking you in a way that's completely out of proportion to the issue.
Please note I said "evidence" and not "proof."
Should I fear writing about Yoko because I know I'll be attacked yet again?
Let the propaganda win out? Where's the truth, or even intelligence, in that?
What kind of forum is it that we should fear speaking our minds and presenting
valid information? Where, instead of discussing the issues presented, the
presenter is attacked (in this instance I don't mean you, Bob) for sharing
information?
Hammerwheel Jack
<rif...@uswest.net> writes:
>It wouldn't be on Entertainment Tonight, it would be on the Gossip Show on
>E. They'd make a living doing it. They'd be called a gossip columnist.
>
Somewhat true, except that this is precisely the distinction I was making.
First, I think it's unlikely that even a gossip columnist would take up his or
her time listing all the ways a celeb has been seen as doing "bad" things in
his or her private life.
I suppose it's possible.
More importantly, though, I chose my example carefully. We are not talking
about someone who is being payed to 'dig dirt', or who even states it as her
job. In my example, I spoke of a private citizen using a public forum to list
another person's
alleged private offenses. That's not the same as a gossip columnist.
Bob
Hammerwheel Jack
(Amaranth56) writes:
>
>Once again, this is about me, and not the issues. How about sticking to the
>topic?
Your topic is Yoko's private behavior and how you dislike much of it. You are
entitled to your opinion, and I won't challange whether or not those things
happened, because I really don't care. John loved her, and entrusted her with
his legacy and money. Even that isn't my business (he as much as said this).
I enjoy some of Yoko's music, and some of her words. Whether she mistreated
some people in her private life is really not my concern. But yes, that is your
topic. Here, I am telling you that you are welcome to it, and not disputing
anything you wrote.
Okay, I addressed your topic. On to the related one several of us see as more
relevant: whether what you chose to do was something which was appropriate to
do. Not what your motivation was. Not what the rationale is (my opinion remains
that there is not a legimate one - not towards Yoko, Paul, Gene Simmons,
Lawrence Welk, Jimmy Hoffa, etc., with regard to their private lives). Just the
appropriateness of it.
That's what several of us have addressed. You have phrased your answers in
terms of not addressing your points. Honestly, if we think your points would be
better off not made, why would prolong that part of it by debating them? In
turn, you have taken the position that we are making you the issue. I don't
think so. Certainly, we are making certain behaviors the issue, but you are not
the first or the last to do this. You are currently defending that behavior, so
we are addressing you in questioning it.
I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. This is pretty much an
open forum. I am wondering why it's done, and giving the reasons why I think it
shouldn't be done.
>
>>While I agree with you that there is a gender related difference in the
>>general
>>area of interest in private lives, I don't think that's the issue here at
>>all.
>>No one's telling you you shouldn't be interested. No one has suggested, I
>>don't
>>think, that there's a reason for you to stop finding interest in anyone's
>>life
>>you choose to. It's a particularly American thing, to, witness the success
>of
>>Entertainment Tonight, etc.
>>The issue here is of taking that interest and getting on a soapbox in public
>>with it.
>
>I didn't get on a soapbox. John's family and a friend made public certain
>statements. I shared them with this discussion forum.
>
Several people here appear to have a soapbox against Yoko. Those of us who rail
against that are accused of be apologists, even when we simply point out that
it's questionable to discuss people's private business, rather than writing
anything supporting Yoko.
And just because some other persons choose to go public with information they
would have done better to keep private does not mean that others should also
report that private information, in my opinion.
>>Can you imagine if John Q. Citizen bought ten minutes on Entertainment
>>Tonight,
>>with the purpose of listing, in detail, every negative behavior, with
>quotes,
>>that has been reported about, say, Arnold Schwartzenegger's private life?
>>First, it probably wouldn't be allowed, but if it was, there would be quite
>>an
>>outcry. Not about Mr. Citizen's right to be fascinated by Arnold's life, but
>>about the questionable nature of going public with such a list AND what the
>>motivation was.
>>
>>That's the difference, in my opinion.
>
>Fine. Here's my take on it.
>
>It's unfortunate that Yoko can't be discussed rationally. It seems some here
>have a frozen image of the Yoko of 30 years ago, helpless and victimized, and
>Lord help anyone who dares tarnish that image. You'd rather believe that
>these
>people, John's family and friends, are liars than entertain the possibility
>that what they say is true.
>
Again, this has nothing to do with Yoko. If you didn't notice, my example was
about Arnold Schwartzenegger. And I truly believe that, if someone went to a
public forum and simply stated "I dislike the following behaviors by Arnold
Schwartzenegger", then listed 20 things his family and others who interacted
with him have reported about him, it would rightfully be met with a great deal
of hostility by many people who would find such behaviors to be beyond the
pale. This is the same thing. Not about Yoko. About behavior towards
celebrities.
Even if every word you wrote about Yoko is true, it doesn't change what I'm
saying. I'm saying this isn't the place for it. I'm saying there is no place
for it. About her, about any celeb. Do you not understand that this is the
point several of us are making? If you do understand our point (whether you
agree with it or not), why do you continue to phrase your answers in terms of
people not wanting to accept the truth? That's not really relevant to our
point. And if you do understand our point, why not answer it?
It's clear to me that those who have been debating you DO understand your
point. You have many things you dislike about her, you believe that she has
used propaganda to project a better image than the "real" her, you find that
many people who have dealt with her privately report a pattern of questionable
behavior, and you think it's somewhat important to report and reveal that to
rmb. Like me, most of those on this side appear to be saying we find it to be
irrelevant - that regardless of her behavior, it's simply not our business.
What I haven't seen is any addressing of the points that those of us on the
other side have been making. As I said, if you do understand our (my) point,
why not answer it?
>I read somewhere that if you show someone evidence of a truth they don't want
>to see, and they don't love truth deeply, they'll turn on you with some form
>of
>manipulation such as anger to stop you from presenting your information,
>attacking you in a way that's completely out of proportion to the issue.
>
What I'd rather not see is private information posted publically, regarding
issues that are of importance to a handful of people, none of them here in this
forum. I find that offensive. And that's the "truth".
>Please note I said "evidence" and not "proof."
>
>Should I fear writing about Yoko because I know I'll be attacked yet again?
>Let the propaganda win out? Where's the truth, or even intelligence, in
>that?
How are you damaged if people aren't informed about Yoko's supposed duplicity?
How am I damaged? How is anyone here in rmb damaged if we are all duped? If you
had evidence of some covert coverup involving the speaker of the house or the
president, involving issues which could change my life, I could see the need to
post that here, in the name of "not letting propaganda win out". What is the
similar need here, resulting in the airing of Yoko's private dirty laundry?
>What kind of forum is it that we should fear speaking our minds and
>presenting
>valid information? Where, instead of discussing the issues presented, the
>presenter is attacked (in this instance I don't mean you, Bob) for sharing
>information?
>
I don't dispute the validity of the actual information. Nor do I assume it to
be true. I really don't know. I don't for a moment think it's my business. I
dispute the validity of posting it, just the same as I would in my
Schwarzenegger example.
Amaranth56
>saying. I'm saying this isn't the place for it. I'm saying there is no place
>for it. About her, about any celeb. Do you not understand that this is the
>point several of us are making? If you do understand our point (whether you
>agree with it or not), why do you continue to phrase your answers in terms of
>people not wanting to accept the truth? That's not really relevant to our
>point. And if you do understand our point, why not answer it?
I'll answer with a question: Do you think my post listing what I see positive
things Yoko has done was any of our business? In your opinion, should I not
have posted that? It's still "private information posted publically." Did you
find that post offensive?
Plus this was not private info. It was made public by John's family and a
friend. Julian went on national TV and talked about it. "Hello!" and
Beatlefan mags are available worldwide. How can such information be considered
private? I did not initiate the release of that information.
Take it up with Beatlefan, Hello!, and the various hosts of TV and radio shows
on which Julian stated his views. Take it up with the UK newspapers. They're
the ones who reported it; not me.
I don't see that I have anything to answer for.
>>How are you damaged if people aren't informed about Yoko's supposed
duplicity?
How am I damaged? How is anyone here in rmb damaged if we are all duped?<<
You misunderstand. I'm hurt by accusations of hatred, bigotry and misogyny.
Of sending inappropriate material to this forum. That my motivation and
intentions are questioned, assumed, and judged as not legitimate. If you read
other posts, I'm not the only one who felt Ian went overboard in his attack on
me.
The attacks are on me, and with one exception, none of the information I posted
has been discussed.
Bob, I respect your beliefs about this. I understand your points and respect
them.
In the end, that's all that need be said. I resent the judgments you make here
and have made before about me. The person you describe would not be recognized
by a single one of my friends or family.
paramucho
>I don't see that I have anything to answer for.
You stubbornly refuse to address the substantial issues that have been
raised. It is not the individual items in your list. I have said that
I would still object to your list even if I accepted the truth of each
item in your list. I have no problems contemplating that some or many
are true.
But in the form you offer it your list is totally unanswerable because
of its length. No-one has the time to deal with the list. It is a
"collage", and you are responsible for the affect of the "collage" as
a whole. Yet, you try to defer responsibility to the individuals
reported in your list.
On top of that you insist that anyone who debates the items in the
list would be calling Lennon's "family" liars. On top of that you
refused to be responsible for the list.
>>>How are you damaged if people aren't informed about Yoko's supposed
>duplicity?
>How am I damaged? How is anyone here in rmb damaged if we are all duped?<<
>
>You misunderstand. I'm hurt by accusations of hatred, bigotry and misogyny.
>Of sending inappropriate material to this forum. That my motivation and
>intentions are questioned, assumed, and judged as not legitimate.
I have accused you of hatred, not of bigotry or misogyny. I have
questioned your intentions in the hope that you would discuss the
issues in a serious manner.
Instead you play games. Even here. The only post to mention misogyny
was Carny's, a post you did not take seriously at all, replying only
"hee hee".
You in avoidance mode rather than trying to engage.
>If you read
>other posts, I'm not the only one who felt Ian went overboard in his attack on
>me.
You will find others who have agreed with me.
I agree I have gone overboard. That is because I apply higher
standards to your usual run-of-the-mill Yoko-basher. And also because
you appear to be trying to weasel out of the way rather than deal with
the substance of the matter.
>The attacks are on me, and with one exception, none of the information I posted
>has been discussed.
You said you would not discuss the information you posted in the ng.
Why should anyone bother?
I would not characterise all the discussion of your posting style as
"attacks". They have certainly developed into a negative dialogue
because you won't deal with the issues.
>Bob, I respect your beliefs about this. I understand your points and respect
>them.
>In the end, that's all that need be said. I resent the judgments you make here
>and have made before about me. The person you describe would not be recognized
>by a single one of my friends or family.
Just as people who know Yoko might not represent the person you
described with your "hate list".
Hammerwheel Jack
(Amaranth56) writes:
>
>I'll answer with a question: Do you think my post listing what I see
>positive
>things Yoko has done was any of our business?
It was unnecessary - she doesn't need our defense. If any of the things you
wrote were private, then no, I don't think it was our business. If She - Yoko -
has chosen to make public those things, then at that point I think it's public
fodder. She has the right to control what is revealed about her.
In your opinion, should I not
>have posted that? It's still "private information posted publically." Did
>you
>find that post offensive?
>
I'd have to go back to it to see if you included information of a presumably
private nature which she herself hasn't publicized. I personally found it to be
giving "the other side of the story", which wouldn't have been called for
without the other side having been discussed first. I found the whole thing
tawdry and unnecessary.
>Plus this was not private info. It was made public by John's family and a
>friend. Julian went on national TV and talked about it. "Hello!" and
>Beatlefan mags are available worldwide. How can such information be
>considered
>private? I did not initiate the release of that information.
>
>Take it up with Beatlefan, Hello!, and the various hosts of TV and radio
>shows
>on which Julian stated his views. Take it up with the UK newspapers.
>They're
>the ones who reported it; not me.
>
They did not report it here. You did. I have not read any interviews with
Julian, having absolutely no interest in him. I don't read any UK newspapers or
"Hello!". I have recently subscribed to Beatlefan, on the recommendation of a
few friends, but have not received a copy yet. If they are prone to discussing
what others say about celebrity's private lives (as opposed to what those
celebs choose to reveal), it will be a short subscription.
I similarly do not watch Entertainment tonight, or read People magazine much,
although when I do, I tend to find they are filled with those nuggets of
information released by the celebrities or their "people", rather than being
filled with the dirty laundry on them shared by those intimates who have chosen
to break a confidence, settle a score, or otherwise make the private into
something public. The second category of "information" is present, but not
nearly as much as stuff given out officially by the celebs.
I'm not alone in this. After all these years of shows like "Cops", the Supreme
Court has decided that newspeople cannot go into private residences with police
officers and tape or otherwise report on what goes on. In other words, people
doing things in private, even questionable things, are entitled to have those
things kept private if THEY choose.
>I don't see that I have anything to answer for.
>
>>>How are you damaged if people aren't informed about Yoko's supposed
>duplicity?
>How am I damaged? How is anyone here in rmb damaged if we are all duped?<<
>
>You misunderstand. I'm hurt by accusations of hatred, bigotry and misogyny.
>Of sending inappropriate material to this forum. That my motivation and
>intentions are questioned, assumed, and judged as not legitimate. If you
>read
>other posts, I'm not the only one who felt Ian went overboard in his attack
>on
>me.
>
I try to be careful in what I say. I don't believe I accused you of anything,
or said that you sent inappropriate material. I said it is behavior that "I"
find it to be inappropriate. That is nothing more than my view of anyone's
actions in this area. I recognize that you may have a totally different
viewpoint, and that it is just that - a viewpoint - and that there is no right
or wrong. You being the one doing it have to make your own decision about the
appropriateness of it.
>The attacks are on me, and with one exception, none of the information I
>posted
>has been discussed.
>
>Bob, I respect your beliefs about this. I understand your points and respect
>them.
>In the end, that's all that need be said. I resent the judgments you make
>here
>and have made before about me. The person you describe would not be
>recognized
>by a single one of my friends or family.
>
I have not described you, at all. I have no judgement about you at all. I do
not know you. I assume you are a nice, friendly person, and that, were we to
meet, we would have a good time. I assume that about everyone here, because I
don't know them.
I have not said a single word about who you are, what you are like or what is
or is not important to you. I don't make assumptions about who people are,
based on their newsgroup posts.
And, if I might point it out, that, in my opinion, is the same point of view we
each owe Yoko, excepting those of us who have actually met her. I suspect that
she could very well find herself saying the same thing to you:
"The person you describe would not be recognized by a single one of my friends
or family."
I don't know that for a fact, but I do know that you don't "know" Yoko any
better than I "know" you. I've never met you, you've never met her. I have no
assumptions at all about who you are. I don't think you can say the same thing
about Yoko.
CYBERFLOYD
about someone who is being payed to 'dig dirt', or who even states it as her
job. In my example, I spoke of a private citizen using a public forum to list
another person's
alleged private offenses. That's not the same as a gossip columnist.
Bob
>>
How does the transaction of money make publishing information (or opinions) a
more valid activity?
CarnyDC
comedic magazine Spy about Schwarzenegger, and how his dad had strong
affiliations with the Austrian Nazi party and how Arnold would spend a lot of
time with rich gay dudes. They even had a nude photo of Schwarzenegger with
his cock hanging out.
I guess Arnold's seriously considering running for Governor of California
now. Wonder how many Governors have photos all over the place of their cocks
hanging out, or who spent a lot of time with rich gay dudes. Probably would
help him clinch the vote in San Francisco though, could even use that photo as
a campaign poster. He can't run for President not being born in the US, but
otherwise could maybe be the first US President with cock photos circulating.
Bill Clinton just prefers shoving his cock in women's faces personally, but
with enough time that could be in the thousands.
*
Alcoholism is a serious illness, you see. It's a good illness, because not
many illnesses you get to be drunk all the time.
-Norm MacDonald
*
Carny'sRaptureCountDown http://members.aol.com/carnysweb
Amaranth56
>list would be calling Lennon's "family" liars. On top of that you
>refused to be responsible for the list.
You were the one who said they might be lying. You continue to forget that
time and again I have noted my appreciation to the person who was present at
Yoko's apology for ripping pages out of the Bible. Chad, that's his name. I
even saved his post.
How have I refused to be responsible for what I posted?
>I have accused you of hatred, not of bigotry or misogyny. I have
>questioned your intentions in the hope that you would discuss the
>issues in a serious manner.
I was speaking in general. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear; I probably
didn't.
For the 50th time, I do NOT hate Yoko. This is no game; it's as honest as I
can be. I don't like some of her actions. There's nothing more to it than
that. To hate someone you must care deeply about them. I don't care enough
about Yoko to invest such intense emotional energy on her.
>Instead you play games. Even here. The only post to mention misogyny
>was Carny's, a post you did not take seriously at all, replying only
>"hee hee".
>
>You in avoidance mode rather than trying to engage.
You misunderstood. I explained it in that thread. It was a parody which I
enjoyed, and I merely let Carny know I "got" it.
>I agree I have gone overboard. That is because I apply higher
>standards to your usual run-of-the-mill Yoko-basher. And also because
>you appear to be trying to weasel out of the way rather than deal with
>the substance of the matter.
Well, Sir Ian, I hope you keep that halo nice and polished.
What substance of the matter am I not dealing with? Please be specific. I
don't understand what you mean, and cannot respond until you clarify. It's not
my nature to run away from confrontation. I might take a break from it for a
day or 2, but here I am. What is it you think I'm not dealing with?
>You said you would not discuss the information you posted in the ng.
>Why should anyone bother?
Ian, I'm right here, waiting. Obviously I've changed my mind. That should
have been clear 3 days ago.
>I would not characterise all the discussion of your posting style as
>"attacks". They have certainly developed into a negative dialogue
>because you won't deal with the issues.
What issues am I not dealing with? You are the one who, instead of taking time
to investigate what I posted to see if there's any contradictory evidence,
would rather tell me what a horrible, horrible person I am for presenting the
quotes in the first place. How about dealing with the issues in my post? It
would be much more constructive. If it's too overwhelming for you, take one.
One issue. There are people here who might help you out. I'd like a
productive, rational debate.
Chad addressed one of the issues, and I'm thankful for his clarification of the
matter. I'd rather know the truth about the Bible incident than remain in
ignorance. That Chad proved my point to be incorrect is incidental. If I
present evidence that's proven wrong, I learn something. I value truth and
knowledge, even it means admitting information I've posted was wrong. That
doesn't matter.
Ian, I'm begging you. Please read the above paragraph carefully. It's not the
first time I've acknowledged Chad's post.
>>Bob, I respect your beliefs about this. I understand your points
>>and respect them. In the end, that's all that
>>need be said. I resent the judgments you make here
>>and have made before about me. The person you describe would not be
>>recognized by a single one of my friends or family.
>
>Just as people who know Yoko might not represent the person you
>described with your "hate list".
People like Julian, Cynthia, Jack Douglas, Norman Birch and Julia Baird? Even
Norman Smith, who was a friend, and sponsored Yoko's art in the 1950s, might
agree. Did you see the quote from him in the post I wrote listing examples of
Yoko's loyalty, generosity and so on?
Will you please stop referring to my post as a "hate list." It's not truthful,
and says more about your mentality and perception than it does about me.
- - - -
"The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons."
Amaranth56
>I'm not alone in this. After all these years of shows like "Cops", the
>Supreme
>Court has decided that newspeople cannot go into private
>residences with police officers and tape or otherwise
>report on what goes on. In other words, people
>doing things in private, even questionable things, are entitled to have
>those things kept private if THEY choose.
You're talking about physically or electronically intruding into a person's
home. That doesn't apply here; it's not the least bit germane to this
discussion or to what I posted.
I agree whole-heartedly with the Supreme Court's decision. I was not aware of
it. However, the information in my post was given freely by people who were
receipients of and eyewitnesses to Yoko's actions. Is there a law related to
that? I realize that you are morally against it.
Yoko has never told the public that she paid all of Charlotte Moormann's
medical bills. Should I not have posted that?
Hammerwheel Jack
(Amaranth56) writes:
>>
>>I'm not alone in this. After all these years of shows like "Cops", the
>>Supreme
>>Court has decided that newspeople cannot go into private
>>residences with police officers and tape or otherwise
>>report on what goes on. In other words, people
>>doing things in private, even questionable things, are entitled to have
>>those things kept private if THEY choose.
>
>You're talking about physically or electronically intruding into a person's
>home. That doesn't apply here; it's not the least bit germane to this
>discussion or to what I posted.
>
Sure it is. People have a right to keep private those things they choose to
keep private. The fact that some distant relative, close relative or hanger on
broke a confidence doesn't mean we should do the same.
>I agree whole-heartedly with the Supreme Court's decision. I was not aware
>of
>it. However, the information in my post was given freely by people who were
>receipients of and eyewitnesses to Yoko's actions. Is there a law related to
>that? I realize that you are morally against it.
>
That's the only point, to me. Obviously, there is no law here in usenet. None
at all. And I don't think there should be. That doesn't mean I can't suggest
things and back it up with my point of view.
>Yoko has never told the public that she paid all of Charlotte Moormann's
>medical bills. Should I not have posted that?
>
Well, I've probably failed within this thread, but I don't want to tell you
what you should or shouldn't do, more what I think shouldn't be done, or what I
would rather people didn't do.
If that was private information, than, in my opinion, it should have stayed
that way. If Yoko wanted the public to know that, she'd have revealed it.
Hammerwheel Jack
(CYBERFLOYD) writes:
I didn't say it was more valid. I don't see those words up there. I have no
interest in gossip columns. However, they do tend to be lists of things that
publicists have released, and I'm not aware of them being filled with lists of
what other people have to say about certain celebrities' private behaviors.
What I was saying is that there certainly is a difference between someone who
is getting paid to round up this information (nearly all of which is sanctioned
by the celebs, otherwise the pipeline of information would dry up), and someone
who has no apparent connection to any celebrity, who professes to not even care
about the
particular celebrity in question, going out of his or her way to produce a list
of the many negative things others have said about that particular celebrity.
While I don't think much of either example, I can't see where they are the same
thing. The former, like it or not (and I don't) is accepted in our society. I
don't think the latter would be well received at all: "Hi, you don't know me,
and I don't really care all that much about Robin Williams, one way or the
other, but his family and others who know him have really had some horrid
things to say about his private life, and I've been asked to share them with
you, so I'm going to.....".
Really, have you ever seen a story on Entertainment Tonight that looked in the
least like that?: "Coming up next, a lengthy list of things we at ET dislike
about Kelly Preston's behavior.......".
paramucho
>>On top of that you insist that anyone who debates the items in the
>>list would be calling Lennon's "family" liars. On top of that you
>>refused to be responsible for the list.
>
>You were the one who said they might be lying. You continue to forget that
>time and again I have noted my appreciation to the person who was present at
>Yoko's apology for ripping pages out of the Bible. Chad, that's his name. I
>even saved his post.
>
>How have I refused to be responsible for what I posted?
You're playing games again. You ask how you have refused to be
responsible for what you posted? It was in the two paragraphs you
snipped immediately preceding the minor point you answered. Here they
are again:
===begin===
>You stubbornly refuse to address the substantial issues that have been
>raised. It is not the individual items in your list. I have said that
>I would still object to your list even if I accepted the truth of each
>item in your list. I have no problems contemplating that some or many
>are true.
>
>But in the form you offer it your list is totally unanswerable because
>of its length. No-one has the time to deal with the list. It is a
>"collage", and you are responsible for the affect of the "collage" as
>a whole. Yet, you try to defer responsibility to the individuals
>reported in your list.
===end===
Now, to go to your next game:
>>On top of that you insist that anyone who debates the items in the
>>list would be calling Lennon's "family" liars. On top of that you
>>refused to be responsible for the list.
>
>You were the one who said they might be lying. You continue to forget that
>time and again I have noted my appreciation to the person who was present at
>Yoko's apology for ripping pages out of the Bible. Chad, that's his name. I
>even saved his post.
You say that I was the "one who said they might be lying". That might
have the same word "liar" as in my question but it is entirely
irrelevant to my point. I said that you insisted that anyone who
debated the items in your list would be calling Lennon's family
"liars".
Your response is yet another game.
<snip>
>>Instead you play games. Even here. The only post to mention misogyny
>>was Carny's, a post you did not take seriously at all, replying only
>>"hee hee".
>>
>>You in avoidance mode rather than trying to engage.
>
>You misunderstood. I explained it in that thread. It was a parody which I
>enjoyed, and I merely let Carny know I "got" it.
Yes it was a parody. It was also the only post to mention misogyny.
And yet you report that you have been accused of "misogyny".
That's playing games.
>>I agree I have gone overboard. That is because I apply higher
>>standards to your usual run-of-the-mill Yoko-basher. And also because
>>you appear to be trying to weasel out of the way rather than deal with
>>the substance of the matter.
>
>Well, Sir Ian, I hope you keep that halo nice and polished.
My typo: that should have read "standards to you than your usual".
>What substance of the matter am I not dealing with? Please be specific. I
>don't understand what you mean, and cannot respond until you clarify. It's not
>my nature to run away from confrontation. I might take a break from it for a
>day or 2, but here I am. What is it you think I'm not dealing with?
See above. I have addressed the points repeatedly. You skip them or
snip them. Or you falsely withdraw from the debate pleading tiredness
so that you can avoid the monster post that addresses each issue in
detail.
Playing games again.
>>You said you would not discuss the information you posted in the ng.
>>Why should anyone bother?
>
>Ian, I'm right here, waiting. Obviously I've changed my mind. That should
>have been clear 3 days ago.
Let's put the context back into your remarks to show how you're
playing games again:
===begin===
>>The attacks are on me, and with one exception, none of the information I posted
>>has been discussed.
>
>You said you would not discuss the information you posted in the ng.
>Why should anyone bother?
===end===
In other words I was explaining to you why we had concentrated on your
behaviour rather. That was lost when you snipped your remarks.
Games.
>>I would not characterise all the discussion of your posting style as
>>"attacks". They have certainly developed into a negative dialogue
>>because you won't deal with the issues.
>
>What issues am I not dealing with?
The ones you've skipped and snipped. See above. I don't want to repeat
myself for the tenth time.
> You are the one who, instead of taking time
>to investigate what I posted to see if there's any contradictory evidence,
>would rather tell me what a horrible, horrible person I am for presenting the
>quotes in the first place.
You said yourself that the issues in your post had mostly been dealt
with in the RMB. Which points were raised at the time you posted them?
I didn't see a summary in your "denunciation list".
> How about dealing with the issues in my post? It
>would be much more constructive. If it's too overwhelming for you, take one.
>One issue. There are people here who might help you out. I'd like a
>productive, rational debate.
Excuse me! We've already generated thousands of lines just trying to
get down two or three of my major points. Now you want me to debate
the substance of your "denunciation list", the list you wouldn't
defend.
In fact I have addressed your list in other posts. But you haven't
responded. I have pointed out that disgruntled relatives, ex-employees
and ex-business partners are often not good witnesses. Don't you know
that from your own broader family or experience?
>Chad addressed one of the issues, and I'm thankful for his clarification of the
>matter. I'd rather know the truth about the Bible incident than remain in
>ignorance. That Chad proved my point to be incorrect is incidental. If I
>present evidence that's proven wrong, I learn something. I value truth and
>knowledge, even it means admitting information I've posted was wrong. That
>doesn't matter.
>
>Ian, I'm begging you. Please read the above paragraph carefully. It's not the
>first time I've acknowledged Chad's post.
So what? What's your point? How does that address the issues of
substance that I've raised and that you've avoided? You're still
trying to divert attention.
<snip>
>Will you please stop referring to my post as a "hate list." It's not truthful,
>and says more about your mentality and perception than it does about me.
Then I'll call it a "denunciation list". It's a longer word, but a
little more accurate.
Hammerwheel Jack
In article <19991003045425...@ng-fz1.aol.com>, amara...@aol.com
(Amaranth56) writes:
>The person you describe would not be
>>>recognized by a single one of my friends or family.
>>
>>Just as people who know Yoko might not represent the person you
>>described with your "hate list".
>
>People like Julian, Cynthia, Jack Douglas, Norman Birch and Julia Baird?
>Even
>Norman Smith, who was a friend, and sponsored Yoko's art in the 1950s, might
>agree. Did you see the quote from him in the post I wrote listing examples
>of
>Yoko's loyalty, generosity and so on?
You referred to "friends or family". When I responded, I put the same spin on
what Yoko's intimates (friends and family) might say. So far as I know, Julian,
Cynthia, Norman Birch and Julia Baird are not members of Yoko's family. And I
think it's a safe bet to say that Jack Douglas does not currently consider
himself her friend.
So perhaps we should return to the question, phrased as you phrased your
statement: Is it not possible, or even probable, that "The person you describe
would not be recognized by a single one of <Yoko's> friends or family"? Since,
after all, you don't actually know her, and they do?
Tom
post without adding any new information or commentary about that subject and
once in the phrase "Yoko-basher." John is only mentioned once in a reference
to his family. The only mention of The Beatles is in Ian's sig.
Is this really the kind of thread either of you want?
paramucho wrote in message <37fe2a5b...@news.remarq.com>...
Tom
>People like Julian, Cynthia, Jack Douglas, Norman Birch and Julia Baird?
Even
>Norman Smith, who was a friend, and sponsored Yoko's art in the 1950s,
might
>agree. Did you see the quote from him in the post I wrote listing examples
of
>Yoko's loyalty, generosity and so on?
>
Today's pop quiz: Find where you spaced out in the above paragraph. (Oh
babe, what would you SAYYYYAYYAYYYAYYYAYY")
That quote has only limited value as evidence since it doesn't mention
specifics. For all we know, "evil" might just have meant that Yoko gets
cranky sometimes and the positive things he said might just have meant that
Yoko never forgot to feed her cats.
paramucho
>post without adding any new information or commentary about that subject and
>once in the phrase "Yoko-basher." John is only mentioned once in a reference
>to his family. The only mention of The Beatles is in Ian's sig.
>
>Is this really the kind of thread either of you want?
I can assure this is an once-only exercise with Amaranth on my part Tom.
You won't have put it up with it for much longer.
Anyway, I don't really consider most of the Yoko threads as exactly on-topic.
--
ian
CYBERFLOYD
the
least like that?: "Coming up next, a lengthy list of things we at ET dislike
about Kelly Preston's behavior.......".
Bob >>
I understand your point, but this is a newsgroup. Since I'd never heard about
any of the information in question,(and it was in the public domain, not a
private matter as you attest) that makes in news to me and in my view,
appropriate in a newsgroup forum. Opinions are OK as well. You're giving yours,
aren't you? I think you are incorrect in your view that there is no place for
that type of post in this, or any forum.
There is currently an uproar about a book someone just published about Ronald
Reagan which has some less than flattering passages. No one is upset about it
except people who like or admire Ronald Reagan. Everyone else will just find it
interesting or boring. Keep in mind when you become upset over something you
read about Yoko Ono or anybody, your emotional involvement with the person
alters your objectivity.
If someone writes a major book on Ono, there will almost certainly be
negative material contained. No one who would be offended by it has to read it.
Same as they don't have to listen to comedian's jokes about people they admire,
or watch their favorite celebs skewered on SNL. They can avoid record and movie
reviews, op-ed pieces, newsgroup posts, or anything which is in opposition to
their view of things. The information one receives is pretty much up to the
individual.
Ehtue
Okay. Now she has explained that several times, yet you still refuse to engage
her on the substance of what she posted, taking her repeated to task for her
"behavior" in posting such a list, collage, or whatever you want to call it
(but STOP calling it a "hate list.").
Games, indeed, Ian.
-Ehtue
Hammerwheel Jack
(CYBERFLOYD) writes:
>I understand your point, but this is a newsgroup. Since I'd never heard about
>any of the information in question,(and it was in the public domain, not a
>private matter as you attest) that makes in news to me and in my view,
>appropriate in a newsgroup forum.
It is now public domain information that a respected newsman had a three decade
relationship, and a second family, with a woman to whom he was not married, all
the while remaining with his wife. There is even about six pages on it in TV
guide this week. That's the public domain. And it simply doesn't belong there -
That doesn't make it a public matter, it makes it a private matter that has
inappropriately been moved to the public domain. Two different things.
> There is currently an uproar about a book someone just published about
>Ronald
>Reagan which has some less than flattering passages. No one is upset about it
>except people who like or admire Ronald Reagan. Everyone else will just find
>it
>interesting or boring. Keep in mind when you become upset over something you
>read about Yoko Ono or anybody, your emotional involvement with the person
>alters your objectivity.
The current Reagan book was done with his full cooperation and knowledge. Once
you authorize someone to do that, whatever they come up with, as long as it's
true, would naturally be things you are giving the author the permission to
release. In the end, it would be Reagan's choice to have had that stuff
revealed. This auther has that permission. Anyone who doesn't have that
permission, and does it anyway, at least during that person's lifetime, is
treading on questionable ground, in my opinion.
The uproar about the current book is because the Author, who is barely half
Reagan's age, and has only known him since the mid 1980's, has interjected
HIMSELF as a character in the book, and presents that character as someone who
has known Reagan all his life. It's a literary device he came up with, and a
lot of people don't like it.
CYBERFLOYD
decade
relationship, and a second family, with a woman to whom he was not married, all
the while remaining with his wife. There is even about six pages on it in TV
guide this week. That's the public domain. And it simply doesn't belong there -
That doesn't make it a public matter, it makes it a private matter that has
inappropriately been moved to the public domain. Two different things.
>>
The editors of TV Guide are free to run whatever material them deem appropriate
and you're entitled to hold a different opinion.
>>The current Reagan book was done with his full cooperation and knowledge.
Once
you authorize someone to do that, whatever they come up with, as long as it's
true, would naturally be things you are giving the author the permission to
release. In the end, it would be Reagan's choice to have had that stuff
revealed. This auther has that permission. Anyone who doesn't have that
permission, and does it anyway, at least during that person's lifetime, is
treading on questionable ground, in my opinion.<<
Ronald Reagan has Alzhiemer's and probably doesn't know a book is out. The
Reagan's granted access to the author. They didn't have editorial control over
the book.
<< The uproar about the current book is because the Author, who is barely half
Reagan's age, and has only known him since the mid 1980's, has interjected
HIMSELF as a character in the book, and presents that character as someone who
has known Reagan all his life. It's a literary device he came up with, and a
lot of people don't like it.
Bob >>
Actually that isn't true. The fictional character is only part of the problem
some people have. The main one is the portrayal of Reagan as a bore, a
space-case, stupid and so on.
Hammerwheel Jack
(CYBERFLOYD) writes:
><< It is now public domain information that a respected newsman had a three
>decade
>relationship, and a second family, with a woman to whom he was not married,
>all
>the while remaining with his wife. There is even about six pages on it in TV
>guide this week. That's the public domain. And it simply doesn't belong there
>-
>That doesn't make it a public matter, it makes it a private matter that has
>inappropriately been moved to the public domain. Two different things.
> >>
>
>The editors of TV Guide are free to run whatever material them deem
>appropriate
>and you're entitled to hold a different opinion.
>
Of course they are free to run that material. They should be free to make that
choice. I don't believe I've said otherwise. I don't think you'd find anywhere
where I've said they aren't free to run what they want, or that Diana wasn't
free to post her list of things about Yoko. I do say that, in my opinion, TV
guide (and, in this case, Diana) chose poorly, in making what I recognize as
being choice to make.
>>>The current Reagan book was done with his full cooperation and knowledge.
>Once
>you authorize someone to do that, whatever they come up with, as long as it's
>true, would naturally be things you are giving the author the permission to
>release. In the end, it would be Reagan's choice to have had that stuff
>revealed. This auther has that permission. Anyone who doesn't have that
>permission, and does it anyway, at least during that person's lifetime, is
>treading on questionable ground, in my opinion.<<
>
>Ronald Reagan has Alzhiemer's and probably doesn't know a book is out. The
>Reagan's granted access to the author. They didn't have editorial control
>over the book.
That's irrelevant. They granted him the right to write an authorized biography,
nearly 15 years ago, long before Reagon began losing his memory (we should all
hope, at least). That means they have given the author the right to reveal
whatever truthful information he comes up with. So that example really doesn't
apply to a discussion regarding the revealing of personal information without
the approval of the person involved.
The issue is, who controls personal information. I would say the choice to have
it revealed should always reside with the person (or, if more than one, all the
people) the information is about. In the TV Guide case, the man is dead, so
it's more or less a moot point, but I still feel they, and many others, make an
ethical error in that sort of decision. I mean, when that story broke, it was
the lead story on the national radio news! What was the importance of that
story, to anyone save those who were involved in the relationships?
lstoll
> with the purpose of listing, in detail, every negative behavior, with quotes,
> that has been reported about, say, Arnold Schwartzenegger's private life?
> First, it probably wouldn't be allowed, but if it was, there would be quite an
> outcry. Not about Mr. Citizen's right to be fascinated by Arnold's life, but
> about the questionable nature of going public with such a list AND what the
> motivation was.
>
> That's the difference, in my opinion.
>
You made some good points, Bob, but I'd say there's quite a difference
between buying time on network television with no apparent provocation
and posting to a news group (a misnomer) because you've been asked why
you have negative feelings about someone who's a subject of the news
group. Add to the mix that it's often suggested the only reasons people
have negative feelings toward this person are racism, sexism, jealousy,
and/or an old, baseless grudge, and you've got a completely different
set of circumstances. I think there may well be another side to the
points of view that Diana compiled, but her list showed us what's behind
her feelings, and I believe that was her goal. -laura
CYBERFLOYD
biography,
nearly 15 years ago, long before Reagon began losing his memory (we should all
hope, at least). That means they have given the author the right to reveal
whatever truthful information he comes up with. So that example really doesn't
apply to a discussion regarding the revealing of personal information without
the approval of the person involved.
>>
Of course it's relevant. Usually an author isn't going to give his subject
editorial control over a book. Then he'd just be writing a propaganda tract.
It isn't necessary to have anyone's approval over what you write about them
whether it's opinion or embarrassing truths. If you can prove falsehoods have
been written you can always take them to court.
<< The issue is, who controls personal information. >>
I'm glad nobody controls it. Free speech is wonderful.
lstoll
>
> In other words, people doing things in private,
> even questionable things, are entitled to have those
> things kept private if THEY choose.
I don't think this applies to what I can remember from Diana's list.
Maybe the Jack Douglas stuff *in concept* because he publically told of
his private dealings with J & Y. The house deal is, I think, a different
matter altogether. It was made public by parties just as directly
involved with it as Yoko. In other words, it was no more Yoko's business
than their business. The Bible tearing incident and the apology were
both public events. -laura
Hammerwheel Jack
(CYBERFLOYD) writes:
><< That's irrelevant. They granted him the right to write an authorized
>biography,
>nearly 15 years ago, long before Reagon began losing his memory (we should
>all
>hope, at least). That means they have given the author the right to reveal
>whatever truthful information he comes up with. So that example really
>doesn't
>apply to a discussion regarding the revealing of personal information without
>the approval of the person involved.
> >>
>
>
> Of course it's relevant. Usually an author isn't going to give his subject
>editorial control over a book. Then he'd just be writing a propaganda tract.
Absolutely. But you're discussing a point I'm not making. There is a difference
between writing a book with the subjects consent (even without editorial
control, which I agree shouldn't be given), and writing a book about someone
without their consent.
And it is the same difference as there is between writing about private things
Yoko has chose to reveal, and writing about private things she has not chosen
to reveal.
I agree that Free Speech is wonderful. A shame Mayor Guiliani doesn't
understand that, by the way. But with that freedom comes responsibility. Just
because one has the "right" to do something, doesn't mean one should
necessarily exercise that right.
Hammerwheel Jack
>
>I don't think this applies to what I can remember from Diana's list.
>Maybe the Jack Douglas stuff *in concept* because he publically told of
>his private dealings with J & Y. The house deal is, I think, a different
>matter altogether. It was made public by parties just as directly
>involved with it as Yoko. In other words, it was no more Yoko's business
>than their business. The Bible tearing incident and the apology were
>both public events. -laura
I agree on the last point. The first one I think is clear cut - I just don't
think one should "dish dirt", however true, on others regarding private
interactions. The middle one is a gray area. It was made public by one side.
Personally, if it was me, I wouldn't have publicized that. If, say, Adam
Baldwin screwed me over in a real estate deal, I might do what I was legally
entitled to, but I wouldn't make any effort to alert anyone to it, aside from
those who needed to know in order to do what I needed to do legally. Is that
all the person (John's relative) did? I don't know. If he went and complained
to the press, for whatever reason, then no, I don't personally think that's
something supportable.
bongo
amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
> >You assume you know John's wife better than he did himself,
> >because you've read some books. You assume you know more
> >than gossip, and truthfully, you don't.
> Your assumption could not be more wrong. Please don't take this
> the wrong way, but where are you getting this? Except for the first
> few sentences, a note about who Dan Richter is, and a short summary
> at the very end, that entire post was nothing but direct,
> word-for-word quotes from John's family and Jack Douglas who
> worked for both John and Yoko.
> Not my words; THEIR words.
Which, even if unfiltered by those who would cultivate these words
for their books--which is a big assumption--would represent one aspect
of a complex picture.
There are countless families who experience huge, irreconcilable
differences of opinion as to who was owed what, and what was
"understood" but not spoken, and who the "bad guy" really is.
Interview any one of these people, and at best you will get their
sincere testimony as to their side of the issue. Interview another
and you could wind up with a story which is equally sincere, yet
contradictory to the other in many key ways.
What *is* the truth in such situations? The collection of sincere
human experiences, with all contradictions intact, arguably.
This is not television, and the truth is bigger than the sum of
its parts.
Why did the Beatles break up? Even if you limit your enquiry to
the four human beings directly involved, you will hear four different
stories. They will have some areas of overlap, but large areas of
unique, personal experience.
Which one is the truth?
None of them. All truthfully tell one aspect of a complex story.
> >And so, on the basis of gossip, you are compelled to "speak
> >the truth" out of your "respect for John", a man whose last
> >words, more or less, were "please don't trash my wife."
>
> Then take it up with Julian, Cyn, Jack, Julia Baird...
If I were hanging out with them, I would express my discomfort at
being drawn into something which is not my business, and which I
am in no position to know.
But I'm not hanging out with them. I'm hanging out with you, and
the other folks here.
I really do like it here, but I've had to walk away from r.m.b. at
least four or five times in my twelve years here, because hanging
somebody in effigy feels very creepy to me, and not something I can
in good conscience associate with.
I don't see any conceivable, possible, miniscule bit of good which
can come from it. And lots of harm, mostly to ourselves, but not
exclusively.
Allow me a short, personal story, regarding the "truth".
There was a time when I was in a long term relationship which ended
very badly, very sloppily. Needlessly so, I thought.
I was in a fair amount of pain. I ran into some folks who had only
met myself and my new ex as a couple in happier times. They asked
me what was going on, and I told them, very sincerely, my version
of the wrongs which had been committed.
As I spoke, I could see in their eyes two things, 1) compassion for
the real pain I was experiencing, and 2) knowledge that Corinna's
answer as to what had happened would differ from mine in many ways,
and that they would probably feel real compassion for her side as well.
I happen to find that an almost perfect response.
Because they were in no position to know what had really gone on,
even though I had just told them, in full sincerity.
Because what I had just told them was only a part of what was true
about that relationship. It was the part lived from my position in
the play.
I told the truth, but only my truth. My partner's truth had been
different, yet it had been equally sincere.
> Why do you assume I don't work with my own weaknesses?
I don't assume so, but I don't understand the outward focus, either.
I don't believe in good people and evil people. I believe in people,
most of us damaged in subtle or severe ways, most of us trying to
make things better within our own little world as we see it. And
all of our worldviews molded strongly by both the damage and the
nourishment we've received.
Sometimes we make mistakes and hurt one another. When the damage
is deep, sometimes the hurtfullness is deep as well.
If all we care about is nice, tidy judgement, then hell, let's stone
each other and be done with it.
But perhaps our intent is not to be hurtful or evil, and what we
are seeing in our actions are the effects of the cataracs in our
own vision. Who, I ask you, is free of these?
Not I.
I've hurt people very badly, and possibly appeared quite callous
while doing so.
I was not my intent, nor was it the "truth" I would have spoken at
that time, if asked about it. But it was true nonetheless.
Was I a bad guy? No. I was a human with imperfect vision, trying
to find my way through life, and hurting others through ignorance.
One of my tricks at the time was comparative morality. "Hey, I'm
not so bad, look at deliberate predators! Look at Ronald Reagan!
(insert Bill Clinton if it makes you feel better) Look at the
atrocities we condone in Latin America! My little transgressions
are not so bad."
Which was a spiritual mistake, turning the spotlight outside rather
than within. Makes it all too easy to never change.
Do I accuse you of doing that?
Diane, I don't *know* you, in spite of having read hundreds if not
thousands of your words over the years. I'm not really in any position
to know you. I speak of what makes sense to me, and of what doesn't
make sense to me.
To me, when we are in no position to know the whole truth, what we
say will always be more about ourselves than about the other. I do
take offense at the hubris I see in declaring otherwise, that we
know the last word on another's humanity.
I do not presume to know the last word on your humanity. I do think
that you are making what I consider a mistake, which is not harmless.
I have no doubt that the other human beings discussed in this thread--
all of them--have also made such mistakes. I have no doubt that there
are people who feel that they have been hurt by Yoko, and I would not
doubt that Yoko herself has felt hurt.
I don't see that public denouncements of any of the above are
appropriate.
> I'd go into it more with you privately, but from what I see here
> you'd twist anything I'd have to say.
There is an alternate explanation, one which cuts to the heart of
my discomfort.
And that explanation is that you and I can see the same set of data
completely differently, without the necessity for one of us to be a
bad guy, or to be lying, or to be "twisting" the other person's intent.
Because we are living very different lives. That's not an attack,
that's the natural state of things.
I find myself--repeatedly--very uncomfortable with some things you
treat as trivial and as a natural curiosity, the right of any fan.
I don't believe such a right exists, and therefore these threads seem
to me exactly as wrong as if I were to use the internet to tell the
world what I saw as the grievous wrongs done me by my former girlfriend.
If I were to do so, I would be deserving of compassion, but I would
still be wrong, and I would have been both unnecessarily hurtful and
in absolutely no danger of doing anybody any good at all.
> I'm not obsessing.
It seems odd when it comes up again, and again, and again.
We always hear, "oh, we're just trying to debunk the myth", but
what myth am I defending?
I'm merely saying that attacking a person we don't know on the basis
of hearsay feels very, very, wrong.
> I didn't imagine Yoko did those things.
You frankly don't know, one way or another. You in particular do not
know how John would feel one way or another, and you do not know that
there has been an intentional denial of his wishes.
Extrapolating such beliefs is not knowledge. John heard every vile
story ever told about Yoko, and unlike ourselves, witnessed the vast
majority of her actual actions when he was alive. He never agreed
with those who insisted that things should be done differently. Why
assume that you know how he felt about things he did not publicly
discuss?
> Because if you believe Yoko didn't do those things, by default
> you're calling these people liars.
No, I'm calling those people human beings in conflict with other
human beings, sincerely telling their side of a complex story.
Again, such divides happen in all sorts of families, often over
money. There is often dispute over what was "assumed" would go to
whom. Of course, the easiest thing is to make such things clear
in a will, or by actually giving a person the title to the house,
or whatever, but that doesn't always happen.
Often person A will go to the grave insisting that they were right,
and person B will to the end of his or her days insist that person
A was not only wrong, but also malicious.
What do we know for certain?
That they disagreed, and that there were very bad feelings.
> Who's trashing Yoko?
Would you prefer "flaming"?
> Do you consider it gossip to say that Yoko paid her
> friend's medical bills,
Yes.
Although it typically does less harm to allege beneficial motives
than malevolent motives, I don't see how any of it is any of our
business.
> IMHO if John knew how Yoko has been treating his family, what
> she's done to them, he'd be turning over in his grave
And in my opinion, you not only don't know that his wishes have
been violated, you also don't know how we would feel about it.
He knew his wife very well. Don't assume he would suddenly join
the lynch mob. He knew very well the woman he was married to.
> >It's just never seemed that much to ask, to me.
> What about telling the truth, sharing information?
Again, you don't know the truth, and the sharing of information
which is none of our business is, by definition, gossip.
I'm on record as believing that gossip is a mistake, and a
potentially harmful one at that.
> It would be an astonishing change of pace if you and others
> actually discussed the ISSUES rather than me:
You see, I am discussing the issue. The issue I see is that we
are making character defamation our business.
I think that speaks poorly of us, and as "I" am a part of "us",
it creates a dilemma for me, as surely as if we were making a more
obvious mistake, such as indulging in hate literature based solely
on bigotry.
That's an issue for me, one which has caused me to leave r.m.b.
many times, due to my personal discomfort.
All the "who murdered who" stuff is not an issue for me, for several
reasons, including a) it's none of my business, b) there's always
more than meets the eye, and hearsay isn't going to get me any closer
to knowing both sides, and c) I believe that celebrities have as much
right to their privacy as you or I.
> None of the Yoko-apologists
And I do resent the hell out of being called an apologist. All I
have insisted about Yoko is that she is a human being, who does not
deserve to be treated as our plaything merely because she married
somebody whose music we liked.
If you can find anywhere I have said otherwise, please quote the
post. I have defended her rights, not her actions, which I am in
no position to be fully informed about, and which are not really
any of my business anyway.
> None of the Yoko-apologists can refute anything
> I've said
By the same token, if somebody who does not like you stated publicly
that you like to torture cats, nobody present could refute that, either.
Because we are not in any position to know.
All the claim would really tell us is that somebody doesn't like you.
> so you've chosen another tact, namely attacking the
> messenger.
I think you're human; what you're doing--and do several times a
year--makes me uncomfortable, as it feels like a serious mistake,
and I feel as implicated as if I said nothing to in response to
a more obvious bigotry or lack of compassion; and I have tried,
without great success to explain both how it makes me feel, and
why it feels to me like a mistake.
Is this attacking you?
Now if I were to hear a rumor that you liked to torture cats, and
if I were to spread that rumor as if it were true, because it had
been spoken by somebody else I do not know, I think that would
qualify as an attack, and I believe that is exactly how we are
behaving with respect to Yoko.
But it is not my intent to attack you, diane, and if you choose to
disbelieve that, it only serves to promote my point that the same
exchange can appear quite differently through different eyes, and
that one eye-witness testimony of any particular action is not
going to shine the light of "truth" on what actually happened--
which is that human beings misunderstood one another, and got upset.
peace,
--bongo
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
bongo
bongo, with his ten thumbs, typed:
> And in my opinion, you not only don't know that his wishes have
> been violated, you also don't know how we would feel about it.
*he*.
you also don't know how *he* would feel about it.
Just a typo. (Unlike Freud, I don't wear slips.)
cheers,
Hammerwheel Jack
<kstewart...@fc.hp.com.invalid> writes:
>> What about telling the truth, sharing information?
>
>Again, you don't know the truth, and the sharing of information
>which is none of our business is, by definition, gossip.
Kent, the whole post was spot-on, and beautiful and all that. You say it better
than I even think it. But this is the heart of the matter, right here.
Well, said.
Bob
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"This is the only thing on CBS right now" - David Letterman
Stephen Carter
'Scuse me for butting in on this apparently personal
exchange. :-)
On 03 Oct 1999 21:41:46 GMT, cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD)
wrote:
> Of course it's relevant. Usually an author isn't going to give his subject
>editorial control over a book. Then he'd just be writing a propaganda tract.
As far as I recall that's *exactly* how the Hunter Davis
book about the Fab's (remember them?) was done. :-)
Not taking sides, just edging this back to Beatledom! :-)
s.d.carterNOSPAM@btinternetdotcom
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
CYBERFLOYD
>editorial control over a book. Then he'd just be writing a propaganda tract.
As far as I recall that's *exactly* how the Hunter Davis
book about the Fab's (remember them?) was done. :-) >>
Yeah, and it's a pretty dull book isn't it? More detailed than anything else
then in existence and ok for it's time.
paramucho
>I really do like it here, but I've had to walk away from r.m.b. at
>least four or five times in my twelve years here, because hanging
>somebody in effigy feels very creepy to me, and not something I can
>in good conscience associate with.
<snip>
>Because they were in no position to know what had really gone on,
>even though I had just told them, in full sincerity.
<snip>
>To me, when we are in no position to know the whole truth, what we
>say will always be more about ourselves than about the other. I do
>take offense at the hubris I see in declaring otherwise, that we
>know the last word on another's humanity.
<snip>
>> What about telling the truth, sharing information?
>
>Again, you don't know the truth, and the sharing of information
>which is none of our business is, by definition, gossip.
>> None of the Yoko-apologists
>
>And I do resent the hell out of being called an apologist. All I
>have insisted about Yoko is that she is a human being, who does not
>deserve to be treated as our plaything merely because she married
>somebody whose music we liked.
<snip>
>> None of the Yoko-apologists can refute anything
>> I've said
>
>By the same token, if somebody who does not like you stated publicly
>that you like to torture cats, nobody present could refute that, either.
>
>Because we are not in any position to know.
>
>All the claim would really tell us is that somebody doesn't like you.
Bongo, you've articulated what I felt and wanted to say. It was a
cathartic read for me. Many thanks. I left the bits above that particularly
helped me.
I want to aplogise to those in the group who feel I was unnecessarily
agressive in these threads. I lack dignity at times and I do get obsessed
with ideas. And I apologise to Amaranth if my posts caused her any
pain. Sometimes I just go for it. In this case it was either a matter of
resolving the issue internally or leaving the group (for a while, again).
I'm not promising to become a softer, sweeter ian.
Thanks again Kent. Experience does count. Beautifully written too.
--
ian
chocolate jesus......
news:rvjgns...@news.supernews.com...
> >In article <19991001200618...@ng-fj1.aol.com>,
> >amara...@aol.com (Amaranth56) wrote:
> >
>
> >I really do like it here, but I've had to walk away from r.m.b. at
> >least four or five times in my twelve years here, because hanging
> >somebody in effigy feels very creepy to me, and not something I can
> >in good conscience associate with.
>
>
> >Because they were in no position to know what had really gone on,
> >even though I had just told them, in full sincerity.
>
>
> >To me, when we are in no position to know the whole truth, what we
> >say will always be more about ourselves than about the other. I do
> >take offense at the hubris I see in declaring otherwise, that we
> >know the last word on another's humanity.
>
>
> >> What about telling the truth, sharing information?
> >
> >Again, you don't know the truth, and the sharing of information
> >which is none of our business is, by definition, gossip.
>
>
> >
> >And I do resent the hell out of being called an apologist. All I
> >have insisted about Yoko is that she is a human being, who does not
> >deserve to be treated as our plaything merely because she married
> >somebody whose music we liked.
>
> >> None of the Yoko-apologists can refute anything
> >> I've said
> >
> >By the same token, if somebody who does not like you stated publicly
> >that you like to torture cats, nobody present could refute that, either.
> >
> >Because we are not in any position to know.
> >
> >All the claim would really tell us is that somebody doesn't like you.
>
>
> cathartic read for me. Many thanks. I left the bits above that
particularly
> helped me.
>
> I want to aplogise to those in the group who feel I was unnecessarily
> agressive in these threads. I lack dignity at times and I do get obsessed
> with ideas. And I apologise to Amaranth if my posts caused her any
> pain. Sometimes I just go for it. In this case it was either a matter of
> resolving the issue internally or leaving the group (for a while, again).
>
> I'm not promising to become a softer, sweeter ian.
>
> Thanks again Kent. Experience does count. Beautifully written too.
>
> --
> ian
"Congratulations, Ian: I think a lot of people will know you a lot better
after this."....:)
=
seriously though, well said Liam.
FYI, it's heartening to see the "normally calm" fly off the handle now and
then and be "abjectly agitated"..:)
i haven't entered into the diana vs ian debate, but i agree with the
sentiment of other posters here who have both identified the very strong
points in BOTH of you guys, and also hope that you can find a point where
you can look across the usenet divide at each other and shrug and say, "hey
ok, we had a spat, a big one, but it's over now and let's get back to being
not only friendly, but friends."
talking "yoko" is like discusing politics with a friend. it's bloody
dangerous.
and as for you bongo, you are an inspiration. no bullshit.
na
--