Yoko and...Dr. Robert?
F Parella
of the specific details of his depiction of Ono - even though she
comes off infinitely worse than Lennon does in the book. One
exception, perhaps, was Philip Norman. After giving Yoko the chance
to reply (albeit very unconvincingly) to some of Goldman's claims
about Lennon, and implying that Yoko would take legal action against
Goldman in the future (she never did), Norman touched, for just an
instant, on one of the book's most delicate topics: Yoko's
extramarital affairs. "A knowledgeable source in New York," Norman
wrote, "confirms that the man portrayed by Goldman as Yoko's lover was
in fact the person who got her off heroin."
That man is Sam Green. And, as anyone who has actually *read*
Goldman's book knows, Green was both the man who helped get Yoko off
heroin *and* her lover. Both aspects of the Green-Ono relationship
are dealt with in detail. In fact, Goldman names the doctor summoned
by Green to the Dakota to treat Ono for heroin addiction in late April
of '79; he was one Rodney B. Ryan (who, incidentally, took Green aside
at one point to warn him to "be careful, Sam," since addicts always
replace one addiction with another).
Interestingly, Green had initially taken Ono to someone else, but this
earlier effort failed when the doctor himself proved to be ailing.
This was a Dr. Robert Freymann. Coincidentally, Freymann is generally
believed to be the inspiration for the Lennon-penned "Dr. Robert"!
Was Green, I wonder, aware of the connection?
RichL
news:fb179803-8b98-4152...@f33g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
'Author Phillip Norman, whose own biography of Lennon (John Lennon: The
Life) was published 20 years after The Lives of John Lennon, described
Goldman's book as "malevolent" and "risibly ignorant". '
Need more?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lives_of_John_Lennon#Criticism
Here ya go:
_____________________________
Lennon's widow Yoko Ono threatened to sue for libel, claiming the book made
her briefly consider suicide, but never pursued any legal action, later
explaining that she wanted to maintain a positive attitude and that her
lawyers had advised her a civil action would only draw more attention to the
book.
Lennon's first wife Cynthia Lennon denounced the book, stating "Every single
person was annihilated. My mother was called a bulldog and a domineering
woman, which was nothing-nothing-like my mother. And he called me a spaniel.
I thought, I'd rather be a spaniel than a Rottweiler, which is what he was."
Despite Goldman's praise of him in the book, Paul McCartney did not return
the favor, and condemned Goldman's account of his old bandmate, telling fans
and the press "Look, don't buy it." Singer-songwriter Harry Nilsson, whose
friendship with Lennon peaked during his 1974 separation from Ono, told
Rolling Stone that Goldman "got me drunk" while interviewing him, probing
Nilsson for "dirt" about Lennon, and Nilsson would not cooperate. (Nilsson
gets a chapter in the book, "Harry the Hustler", which credits him with
having better confidence-man skills than singing talent.)
In Ray Coleman's Lennon: The Definitive Biography, there appears the
following quote from The Beatles' record producer George Martin: "I think it
is iniquitous that people can libel the dead. If John was alive, that book
would not have come out. It is largely untrue, but, sadly, if mud is thrown
it tends to stick." Martin also labeled the book as "codswallop".
Other celebrities who'd known Lennon personally, including Geraldo Rivera
and Tom Snyder, largely expressed an attitude of "Interesting story-who's it
about? That's not the man I knew."
The October 20, 1988 issue of Rolling Stone lambasted the book in a lengthy
and extensively-researched article by David Fricke and Jeffrey Ressner,
"Imaginary Lennon". The reviewers described the book as "riddled with
factual inaccuracies, embroidered accounts of true events that border on
fiction and suspect information provided by tainted sources." Further,
Fricke and Ressner stated that "Rolling Stone spoke to sources interviewed
by Goldman who said that they were misquoted or that the information they
provided him was used out of context. Other figures close to Lennon who
refused to speak to Goldman or were not contacted by him claim that
incidents in the book in which they appear either never happened or did not
occur in the way Goldman recounts them." Among the factual errors listed by
Rolling Stone: guitarist Danny Forchnar denies Lennon ever bit him in the
nose, Goldman source Tony Monero denies Lennon ever told him to "Suck my
cock!", Apple executive Tony King denies Lennon snorted cocaine before his
1974 concert appearance with Elton John, Goldman incorrectly describes the
Lennon's kitchen stove as match-lit when recounting an anecdote of Lennon
trying to set Ono's hair on fire, and Goldman incorrectly describes the
"Love Me Do" single as a 78 instead of a 45.
David Gates responded in Newsweek by reminding readers that a romantic
vision of Lennon is just as much of a myth as Goldman's portrayal. Editor
Jann Wenner is quoted as saying that the book "offended him at every level",
suggesting that he as a personal friend of the Lennons had good reason to
want to preserve an idealist version of Lennon's life. However, by stating a
number of easily researched facts, the article also exposes a number of
Goldman's inaccuracies and concludes with a reminder that the best way to
know Lennon is through his recordings. Gates noted in the article that
Goldman presents no evidence for his claim that Lennon patronized male
prostitutes in Thailand or that Lennon killed a sailor in Hamburg, and only
secondhand hearsay for the tale of Lennon blaming himself for Stuart
Sutcliffe's death.
Louis Menand in The New Republic described the sourcing of Goldman's book as
"vague and unreliable". Menand wrote of Goldman's book that "The little
things don't matter, of course, if the big things can be trusted. But the
big things can't." Luc Sante, in New York Review of Books, said about the
account of Lennon's consumption of LSD in the book: "Goldman's background
research was either slovenly or nonexistent."
Goldman denounced the Rolling Stone article as "a farrago of groundless or
insignificant charges designed to discredit my biography of John Lennon". He
also mocked what he called "the stupidity of the [Newsweek] magazine
employees who were assigned the task of smearing me and my book", and
concluded by saying that Sante was "a young man of no reputation in the
field of popular culture." Sante good-naturedly replied that Goldman's
tirade proved that the book was a gigantic, humorous "put-on".
_____________________________
Note to Parella: I have not read the Goldman book. However, I have now
read enough ABOUT the Goldman book to know that it's tripe, pure and simple.
All books are not created equal.
F Parella
perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
Never mind. Sam Green - the man under discussion - has supported
Goldman's book, and the Freymann ("Dr. Robert") connection is
remarkable, in my opinion. I'd prefer to stay focussed on that, if
anyone cares to discuss it.
F Parella
> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
By the way, I have an article by Norman where he and Ono attempt a
point-by-point rebuttal of Goldman. It is very telling indeed.
Perhaps it's worthy of a separate thread, where we can look at the
argument in detail.
RichL
> Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
> perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
As imperfect as it is, Wikipedia has an immeasurably higher standard of
accuracy than Goldman does.
Danny McEvoy
> As imperfect as it is, Wikipedia has an immeasurably higher standard of
> accuracy than Goldman does.
Well..I very much disagree Rich...but then you would expect that eh?
No doubt the subject will arise in the future!! :-)
Danny
John Doherty
> Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
> perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
Actually, that's a logical perspective.
Wikipedia, though subject to distortion and misinformation, also has
legions of readers & writers who zealously correct any mischief.
Though on any given day, you may stumble upon a bit mischief or
innacuracy, if you return the next day, that error will likely be
corrected. There was a dfamous study that showed that Wikipedia had a
level of accuracy that equaled the online Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Goldman, by contrast, has been successfully exposed on numerous points
as malicious and sloppy.
Even Yoko haters who might cling to some of the Yoko muck, will find
plenty that's erroneous in other parts of the book.
Although I have had every reason to loathe Goldman (I don't need to
interview MD Chapman to know I don't care to), I did eventually read
the book. My wife found a copy at a yard sale, so I was confident I
was not enriching his heirs.
And even though it was like stumbling head first into a sewer, there
was one passage I liked a lot: his analysis of Strawberry Fields
Forever, which connected the song's general vibe of hippie dippie good
times with the inspiration of a lonely abandoned boy looking out the
bedroom window of Aunt Mimi's over to the local orphanage and
understanding in his bones , that "there, but for the grace of God,
go I". So Lennon has constructed this tour of his mind in a way that
many experience it as psychedelic reverie and feel-good mind
expansion, but at its core is the horror of abandonment, a curse that
Lennon never escaped, and indeed, one he would revisit on the next
generation through Julian.
But that good bit is like saying that "even a stopped watch is right
twice a day".;-)
moonpie
wrote:
then Goldman must be the most inaccurate person on earth.
moonpie
<jo...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>On Aug 2, 7:07 pm, F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
>> perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
>
>Actually, that's a logical perspective.
>
>Wikipedia, though subject to distortion and misinformation, also has
>legions of readers & writers who zealously correct any mischief.
>Though on any given day, you may stumble upon a bit mischief or
>innacuracy, if you return the next day, that error will likely be
>corrected. There was a dfamous study that showed that Wikipedia had a
>level of accuracy that equaled the online Encyclopedia Brittanica.
thats.. almost unbelievable to me, but, I'll take your word for it.
Got a link to that study?
(It wasnt paid for by Wiki, was it?)
John Doherty
> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 06:00:45 -0700 (PDT), John Doherty
>
> >On Aug 2, 7:07 pm, F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
> >> perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
>
> >Actually, that's a logical perspective.
>
> >Wikipedia, though subject to distortion and misinformation, also has
> >legions of readers & writers who zealously correct any mischief.
> >Though on any given day, you may stumble upon a bit mischief or
> >innacuracy, if you return the next day, that error will likely be
> >corrected. There was a dfamous study that showed that Wikipedia had a
> >level of accuracy that equaled the online Encyclopedia Brittanica.
>
On Aug 3, 9:32 am, moonpie <mr_rc_moon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> thats.. almost unbelievable to me, but, I'll take your word for it.
> Got a link to that study?
Huh? If you are going to take my word for it, why would you request a
link;-)?
I think it's perfectly fine to ask for backup, I'm just tweaking you
on your first statement.
>
> (It wasnt paid for by Wiki, was it?)
No, by Nature magazine.
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
"For its study, Nature chose articles from both sites in a wide range
of topics and sent them to what it called "relevant" field experts for
peer review. The experts then compared the competing articles--one
from each site on a given topic--side by side, but were not told which
article came from which site. Nature got back 42 usable reviews from
its field of experts.
In the end, the journal found just eight serious errors, such as
general misunderstandings of vital concepts, in the articles. Of
those, four came from each site. They did, however, discover a series
of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told,
Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123.
That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86
for Wikipedia. "
So, in this 2005 study, Wiki was slightly less reliable, almost 4
mistakes per article vs. Brittanica's almost 3 per article. And in
"serious errors". both sources were even: 4 each.
Since this study was undertaken, Wiki has done a "tighten up" on
controversial articles, subjecting hot topics (such as evolution,
Iraq War, Bush, Obama, etc.) to peer review prior to publishing.
In response, Conservative cranks started a "Conservapedia" for those
who prefer their ideology free of actual facts.;-) If they can't rule
everyone's facts, they sure can control their own!
moonpie
<jo...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 3 Aug 2010 06:00:45 -0700 (PDT), John Doherty
>>
>> <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 2, 7:07 pm, F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
>> >> perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
>>
>> >Actually, that's a logical perspective.
>>
>> >Wikipedia, though subject to distortion and misinformation, also has
>> >legions of readers & writers who zealously correct any mischief.
>> >Though on any given day, you may stumble upon a bit mischief or
>> >innacuracy, if you return the next day, that error will likely be
>> >corrected. There was a dfamous study that showed that Wikipedia had a
>> >level of accuracy that equaled the online Encyclopedia Brittanica.
>>
>
>On Aug 3, 9:32 am, moonpie <mr_rc_moon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> thats.. almost unbelievable to me, but, I'll take your word for it.
>> Got a link to that study?
>
>Huh? If you are going to take my word for it, why would you request a
>link;-)?
>
Haha!
well, its Usenet, you know....
OK, I'd like to take your word for it, but I'd also like to see some
kind of backup.
There, thats better.
>
>http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
>
interesting article, thanks for posting
I guess I cant dump on Wiki anymore.
Damn thats no fun.
RichL
news:466badab-4fad-499c...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 2, 7:07 pm, F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
>> perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
>
> Actually, that's a logical perspective.
>
> Wikipedia, though subject to distortion and misinformation, also has
> legions of readers & writers who zealously correct any mischief.
> Though on any given day, you may stumble upon a bit mischief or
> innacuracy, if you return the next day, that error will likely be
> corrected.
Yup, it's basically "peer-reviewed". And despite its flaws, it's probably
the best all-purpose *online* source available.
Fattuchus
>
> That man is Sam Green. And, as anyone who has actually *read*
> Goldman's book knows, Green was both the man who helped get Yoko off
> heroin *and* her lover. Both aspects of the Green-Ono relationship
> are dealt with in detail. In fact, Goldman names the doctor summoned
> by Green to the Dakota to treat Ono for heroin addiction in late April
> of '79; he was one Rodney B. Ryan (who, incidentally, took Green aside
> at one point to warn him to "be careful, Sam," since addicts always
> replace one addiction with another).
>
> Interestingly, Green had initially taken Ono to someone else, but this
> earlier effort failed when the doctor himself proved to be ailing.
> This was a Dr. Robert Freymann. Coincidentally, Freymann is generally
> believed to be the inspiration for the Lennon-penned "Dr. Robert"!
> Was Green, I wonder, aware of the connection?
It would have been a heck of a coincidence.
Fattuchus
I would like to see that.
Fattuchus
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 19:59:17 -0400, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:a0a384e3-a35d-48a5...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >> Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
> >> perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
>
> >As imperfect as it is, Wikipedia has an immeasurably higher standard of
> >accuracy than Goldman does.
>
> then Goldman must be the most inaccurate person on earth.
I believe that some parts of the Goldman book are true, some untrue.
F Parella
> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
But Rich, you've said that each participant to an event has his own
truth. How can you now be so dismissive of Goldman's truth? (I
remind you that Goldman met John and Yoko, and that he even testified
in court on their behalf.) Give me a direct answer, please.
It seems that every time I attempt to discuss a book in his group, you
go fumbling around on websites for negative reviews. Then you post
them here, and swan about as if you've laid the matter to rest - which
is extremely naive at best. Do you have any basis whatsoever, Rich,
for assuming that your anonymous reviewers have more participation
with John and Yoko than the authors I try to discuss? (And, by the
way, how come you can never do your own work?)
Your anonymously assembled Wikipedia review quotes Luc Sante on
Goldman. I happen to know that Sante reviewed Goldman in the NY
Review of books - and that Goldman responded to this review vigorously
and in detail (this was in spring, IIRC, of 1989). Most people I know
who read the exchange thought Goldman won it. The problem with your
Wikipedia review is not that it downplays the Sante-Goldman exchange;
the problem is that it gives the impression that *there was no
exchange*. Maybe relying on anonymous yokels isn't such a good idea
after all.
Your Wikipedia review also has quotes from Philip Norman where he
bashes Goldman. Now, I have the article, from the Times of London in
1988, where Norman and Ono actually put their heads together in an
effort to refute Goldman. For example, Goldman describes several
occasions where Lennon was violent. But Norman points out that, in
the "Imagine: John Lennon" film, there's no footage of John acting
violently. (What a weird argument.) And he quotes Ono, who says that
John was never violent; "If he felt like hitting anything," she says,
"he'd pick up a big pillow we had, and punch it with both hands."
Well, today no informed person disputes that Lennon was violent.
Indeed, even Yoko's own spokesman admits Lennon once attempted to
strangle him! Oh - and guess in whose book Mintz describes this
ordeal? Yep, it's in Philip Norman's recent Lennon bio. Goldman was
right all along.
F Parella
> On Aug 2, 6:05 pm, F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > That man is Sam Green. And, as anyone who has actually *read*
> > Goldman's book knows, Green was both the man who helped get Yoko off
> > heroin *and* her lover. Both aspects of the Green-Ono relationship
> > are dealt with in detail. In fact, Goldman names the doctor summoned
> > by Green to the Dakota to treat Ono for heroin addiction in late April
> > of '79; he was one Rodney B. Ryan (who, incidentally, took Green aside
> > at one point to warn him to "be careful, Sam," since addicts always
> > replace one addiction with another).
>
> > Interestingly, Green had initially taken Ono to someone else, but this
> > earlier effort failed when the doctor himself proved to be ailing.
> > This was a Dr. Robert Freymann. Coincidentally, Freymann is generally
> > Was Green, I wonder, aware of the connection?
>
> It would have been a heck of a coincidence.
Freymann was famous for treating artists & musicians (he had treated
bebop great Charlie Parker back in the day), and had a lot junkie
clients. A worldly person like Sam Green would certainly have been
aware of this. Thus far, though, there's no indication that Green (or
even Goldman) was aware that Freymann was THE "Dr. Robert."
RichL
> On Aug 2, 4:59 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:a0a384e3-a35d-48a5...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
>> > perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
>>
>> As imperfect as it is, Wikipedia has an immeasurably higher standard of
>> accuracy than Goldman does.
>
> But Rich, you've said that each participant to an event has his own
> truth. How can you now be so dismissive of Goldman's truth? (I
> remind you that Goldman met John and Yoko, and that he even testified
> in court on their behalf.) Give me a direct answer, please.
Goldman did not participate in 98% (an estimate) of the events described in
his book.
>
> It seems that every time I attempt to discuss a book in his group, you
> go fumbling around on websites for negative reviews.
I did not go "fumbling". I went to a single source.
> Then you post
> them here, and swan about as if you've laid the matter to rest - which
> is extremely naive at best. Do you have any basis whatsoever, Rich,
> for assuming that your anonymous reviewers have more participation
> with John and Yoko than the authors I try to discuss?
Wikipedia has anonymous reviewers? Good lord, man! The portion of the Wiki
article I referenced lists the following people as having extremely negative
attitudes about the book:
Cynthia Lennon
Yoko Ono
Paul McCartney
Harry Nilsson
George Martin
Geraldo Rivera
Tom Snyder
Jann Wenner
> (And, by the
> way, how come you can never do your own work?)
What does this mean, "do your own work"? Are you implying that you've
independently researched Lennon?
>
> Your anonymously assembled Wikipedia review quotes Luc Sante on
> Goldman. I happen to know that Sante reviewed Goldman in the NY
> Review of books - and that Goldman responded to this review vigorously
> and in detail (this was in spring, IIRC, of 1989). Most people I know
> who read the exchange thought Goldman won it. The problem with your
> Wikipedia review is not that it downplays the Sante-Goldman exchange;
> the problem is that it gives the impression that *there was no
> exchange*. Maybe relying on anonymous yokels isn't such a good idea
> after all.
Errr, did you miss a part in what I posted above?
"Goldman denounced the Rolling Stone article as "a farrago of groundless or
insignificant charges designed to discredit my biography of John Lennon". He
also mocked what he called "the stupidity of the [Newsweek] magazine
employees who were assigned the task of smearing me and my book", and
concluded by saying that Sante was "a young man of no reputation in the
field of popular culture." Sante good-naturedly replied that Goldman's
tirade proved that the book was a gigantic, humorous "put-on"."
That's an impression of "no exchange"?
>
> Your Wikipedia review also has quotes from Philip Norman where he
> bashes Goldman. Now, I have the article, from the Times of London in
> 1988, where Norman and Ono actually put their heads together in an
> effort to refute Goldman.
Post the whole article, or link to it. Given your past track record, I'm
not going to fall for an out-of-context trap.
moonpie
wrote:
>"F Parella" <f_pa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:4971914b-fabd-4359...@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
>> On Aug 2, 4:59 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:a0a384e3-a35d-48a5...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
>>> > perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
>>>
>>> As imperfect as it is, Wikipedia has an immeasurably higher standard of
>>> accuracy than Goldman does.
>>
>> But Rich, you've said that each participant to an event has his own
>> truth. How can you now be so dismissive of Goldman's truth? (I
>> remind you that Goldman met John and Yoko, and that he even testified
>> in court on their behalf.) Give me a direct answer, please.
>
>Goldman did not participate in 98% (an estimate) of the events described in
>his book.
wait a minnit, are you suggesting someone has to have personal
experience in a given subject of discussion or therefore their opinion
doesnt carry much substance?
haha
just yanking yer chain Rich, carry on old boy
RichL
news:5dhl56hgn37u8gukk...@4ax.com...
Well, I'd say if a third party interviews a number of people who have
FIRSTHAND experience in a subject and accurately reflects their views
without injecting his/her own BIAS, that's fine too.
>
> haha
>
> just yanking yer chain Rich, carry on old boy
Yeah, I know ;-)
F Parella
> "FParella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4971914b-fabd-4359...@w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Aug 2, 4:59 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>news:a0a384e3-a35d-48a5...@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Books you haven't read are "sleaze," Rich, but Wikipedia articles are
> >> > perfectly okay? Now there's a principled person!
>
> >> As imperfect as it is, Wikipedia has an immeasurably higher standard of
> >> accuracy than Goldman does.
>
> > But Rich, you've said that each participant to an event has his own
> > truth. How can you now be so dismissive of Goldman's truth? (I
> > remind you that Goldman met John and Yoko, and that he even testified
> > in court on their behalf.) Give me a direct answer, please.
>
> Goldman did not participate in 98% (an estimate) of the events described in
> his book.
I'll say this for you, Rich: You sure like switching the goalposts.
One minute you're preaching relativism (each participant to an event,
you say, has his own truth); the next, you're an absolutist (you don't
hesitate to deem books you haven't read "sleaze" or "tripe"). Now you
claim to be concerned with percentages; you suggest Goldman
participated in 2% of what he described - though the process by which
you reached that figure is mysterious, since you haven't read his
book).
I don't know about this latest routine, Rich. Where was your concern
with percentages when it came time to Ono's statements? Where was
this concern when it came to Wikipedia articles and Amazon reviews?
> > It seems that every time I attempt to discuss a book in his group, you
> > go fumbling around on websites for negative reviews.
>
> I did not go "fumbling". I went to a single source.
On this occasion, you relied on Wikipedia. In previous instances -
for example, when I tried to discuss John Green's book - you groped
around on Amazon for negative reviews. Why can't you write your own
reviews, Rich?
> > Then you post
> > them here, and swan about as if you've laid the matter to rest - which
> > is extremely naive at best. Do you have any basis whatsoever, Rich,
> > for assuming that your anonymous reviewers have more participation
> > with John and Yoko than the authors I try to discuss?
>
> Wikipedia has anonymous reviewers? Good lord, man! The portion of the Wiki
> article I referenced lists the following people as having extremely negative
> attitudes about the book:
>
> Cynthia Lennon
> Yoko Ono
> Paul McCartney
> Harry Nilsson
> George Martin
> Geraldo Rivera
> Tom Snyder
> Jann Wenner
Now, now, Rich. You're confusing *people mentioned* in the article
with the article's author(s).
> > (And, by the
> > way, how come you can never do your own work?)
>
> What does this mean, "do your own work"? Are you implying that you've
> independently researched Lennon?
I'm saying that when I want to comment on books or articles, I write
my own commentaries rather than lifting them from sites like Wikipedia
and Amazon.
> > Your anonymously assembled Wikipedia review quotes Luc Sante on
> > Goldman. I happen to know that Sante reviewed Goldman in the NY
> > Review of books - and that Goldman responded to this review vigorously
> > and in detail (this was in spring, IIRC, of 1989). Most people I know
> > who read the exchange thought Goldman won it. The problem with your
> > Wikipedia review is not that it downplays the Sante-Goldman exchange;
> > the problem is that it gives the impression that *there was no
> > exchange*. Maybe relying on anonymous yokels isn't such a good idea
> > after all.
>
> Errr, did you miss a part in what I posted above?
>
> "Goldman denounced the Rolling Stone article as "a farrago of groundless or
> insignificant charges designed to discredit my biography of John Lennon". He
> also mocked what he called "the stupidity of the [Newsweek] magazine
> employees who were assigned the task of smearing me and my book", and
> concluded by saying that Sante was "a young man of no reputation in the
> field of popular culture." Sante good-naturedly replied that Goldman's
> tirade proved that the book was a gigantic, humorous "put-on"."
>
> That's an impression of "no exchange"?
Actually, I did miss that at first; my mistake. It does, however,
seriously understate the thoroughness of Goldman's reply to Sante.
> > Your Wikipedia review also has quotes from Philip Norman where he
> > bashes Goldman. Now, I have the article, from the Times of London in
> > 1988, where Norman and Ono actually put their heads together in an
> > effort to refute Goldman.
>
> Post the whole article, or link to it. Given your past track record, I'm
> not going to fall for an out-of-context trap.
It's in the Sept. 11, 1988 Times of London. And you really ought not
to be bitching about my track record (which I happily stand by),
Rich. How many times have you posed as a logician, only to instantly
crumble? How many times have you claimed to KF me, only to resume
replying to me a day or two later?
RichL
>> Cynthia Lennon
>> Yoko Ono
>> Paul McCartney
>> Harry Nilsson
>> George Martin
>> Geraldo Rivera
>> Tom Snyder
>> Jann Wenner
>
> Now, now, Rich. You're confusing *people mentioned* in the article
> with the article's author(s).
Those individuals I listed were directly quoted. If you dispute the
accuracy of the quotes, have at it. Otherwise you're simply shooting the
messenger.
Revenge of Sith
> Those individuals I listed were directly quoted.
They are people who have a vested interest in attacking the book.
RichL
"Revenge of Sith" <reveng...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dde33461-1a6b-4707...@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 6:35 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Those individuals I listed were directly quoted.
>
> They are people who have a vested interest in attacking the book.
Just to pick one example, what is George Martin's vested interest?
Revenge of Sith
> Just to pick one example, what is George Martin's vested interest?
He was a friend of John's who wanted to stay in Yoko's good graces.
Fattuchus
Since Yoko inherited John's wealth and prestige, and controls the
estate, she is very powerful in Beatles related things. It would be
in Sir George's interests to make nice to Yoko.
Revenge of Sith
> It would be in Sir George's interests to make nice to Yoko.
BTW in one of the few nice stories about John's last years, George
Martin, who hadn't seen John since the Abbey Road sessions ten years
earlier and was estranged from John because he was hurt by John's 1970
Rolling Stone interview, visited New York in 1979 and reconciled with
John. Martin achieved something Paul and George failed to do.
who?
There was no hard feelings between Paul and George Martin.
George Martin went on to produce McCartney later on.
Talking about moving the goal posts. You're sure good at
it. You do yourself what you accuse others of doing.
Congrats.
BTW, RichL is a good buddy of mine simply because he's
never tried to annoy me by saying stupid shit like you
do to me. We'll always be good friends.
who?
I doubt it. He's up
in his years and has long ago made a
name for himself as the Beatles producer. You never
know what he might have taped...saying what he wants
after his own death....regarding the Beatles and Yoko.
Revenge of Sith
> There was no hard feelings between Paul and George Martin.
That's not what I said, dickhead. My post said that McCartney and
Harrison failed to make peace with Lennon before he got shot while
Martin was successful.
who?
Why the name calling?
UsurperTom
> Why the name calling?
You called me an asshole once last year.
who?
I'm sorry my words hurt you.
F Parella
> "F Parella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
So now direct participation is no longer a requirement of yours;
quotes from participants are also acceptable?
F Parella
Furthermore, have any of these people given any indication of having
actually read Goldman's book - or were they merely holding to the
party line?
In 1988, Ono, her PR people, and Ono-friendly journalists (such as
Norman) all implied that she was preparing to take legal action
against Goldman. A few years after that, Ono admitted that she had
never even read the book. The threat was all smoke & mirrors.
RichL
You're daft, Parella. I'm tired of your twisting my words. Your only
purpose on this newsgroup any more is to thrust the knife deeper and twist
it some more.
Get help.
F Parella
> "FParella" <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c1ab43c9-3ec2-478d...@v41g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 6:35 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>news:33a1b207-cd78-47a4...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> Cynthia Lennon
> >> >> Yoko Ono
> >> >> Paul McCartney
> >> >> Harry Nilsson
> >> >> George Martin
> >> >> Geraldo Rivera
> >> >> Tom Snyder
> >> >> Jann Wenner
>
> >> > Now, now, Rich. You're confusing *people mentioned* in the article
> >> > with the article's author(s).
>
> >> Those individuals I listed were directly quoted. If you dispute the
> >> accuracy of the quotes, have at it. Otherwise you're simply shooting the
> >> messenger.
>
> > So now direct participation is no longer a requirement of yours;
> > quotes from participants are also acceptable?
>
No, I have not twisted your words, Rich. Rather, your problem is that
you're forever bouncing back and forth between contradictory positions
(e.g., relativism & absolutism; abject gullibility when it comes to
Yoko yet radical skepticism when it comes to her critics; pretending
you've KF'd me one day while deluging me with replies the next). You
need to get your story straight, Rich. Oh - and, while you're at it,
do some homework for once. Read some books. Your posts would be more
worthwhile if you had some idea of what you were talking about.