Sean Lennon on John's Temper and Goldman's Book
Francie
(From IK! Double
Issue #39/40, December 1988)
It was the start of what would be a nightmare of ugly stories,
innuendo and backstabbing for the Lennon-Ono family. It was the
Albert Goldman book publicity campaign going into full
swing, with Goldman appearing on t.v. interview shows and his book's
accusations appearing on the front page of newspapers and in
prominent magazines. Yoko worried how all of this
publicity would hurt Sean. Sean responded with fighting words. IK
reported on the Lenono response in Issue #39/40 (now available as a
back issue). The following is how it appeared in
IK.
It began with a phone call from Yoko to Sean at summer camp. She
warned Sean that "People" Magazine was coming out with a story about
Mom and Dad
and that it was going to be bad. She apologized to him for not being
able to stop it. She said he replied, "Mommy, can we please fight
this thing?" She agreed
- and he said he'd do anything he had to do to fight it.
Sean told the New York Post, "At first, I thought (the book) was
very serious, but then I realized it was just a big joke."
His first public appearance was with his Mom,his brother and family
friend, Elliot Mintz on Westwood One's "Lives of John Lennon: Fact
or Fiction" on
September 14. Sean told Mintz that his Dad was not an anorexic
recluse, and expressed disbelief that anyone could be so dumb as to
believe it: "I really doubt
that anyone out there is going to believe that my Dad had the legs
of a bird and that you could pour water into his collarbones. I
don't know, my comment on
that is that it's just so outlandish and blatant lying that it's
stupid."
Mintz then quoted from the book about John throwing one of the cats
and kicking Sean in what Goldman referred to as his "pampered ass."
Sean replied, in a
laughing, mocking tone of voice: "I can't recollect my Dad ever
kicking me in the ass. The worst he's ever done that I can remember
is yell at me, but kicking
me in my 'pampered ass', hmmm, I can't remember this at all, but
maybe since Albert had all this quality time in the bedroom with my
Dad, I'm sure that he
knows better than I do. I can't remember my Dad throwing the cat
down the hall, ever. My Dad loved the cat, actually. How the hell
would (Goldman) know what went on inside the house?"
Mintz reminded Sean that these stories came from Fred Seaman and
Marnie Hair. Sean: "Then you ask them and they tell you, 'I never
said that' and the
people who do say 'I did say that' such as Mrs. Hair, well, they're
just more sickly than the character described in this book. (John)
was a great person as a
Father. I think he did enough fathering..he did 20 years of
fathering in the five years that I knew him. He was always around.
Some fathers aren't as real as he was."
Rest of the article at:
http://www.instantkarma.com/seanspeaksup.html
Put that in your Seaman bag and smoke it Diana!
Francie
--
“To live is so startling it leaves little time for
anything else.” -- Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944
UsurperTom
>Put that in your Seaman bag and smoke it Diana!
What you wrote isn't new in this newsgroup. Those statements were from a press
conference convened by Yoko and Mintz. Sean was 12 in 1988. I wouldn't put
too much stock in what a kid who's coached says to the press. Ten years later,
Sean said in the New Yorker that John had a "violent temper" and was "a macho
pig" who cheated on Yoko. He even referred to his father as "an asshole"
according to a BBC report on the 20th anniversary of John's murder.
Tom
Francie
I think it's generally agreed that Sean Lennon was perfectly capable of
remembering his father without being coached, and that the closer one is to the
time of the events, the clearer the memory.
Once again, you rely on unattributed, undocumented statements to prop up your
bullshit.
UsurperTom wrote:
Francie
paramucho
I've heard about the Rolling Stone article, but I haven't seen it.
after the 22 year-old rocker told Rolling Stone magazine that his
dad was a "macho pig" with a "violent temper" who once had sex with
a woman at a party that Yoko attended.
The "cheated on Yoko" episode took place before Sean was born. It is
possible that the remarks about John having a "violent temper" also
predate his experiences with Lennon.
So, there's not necessarily a contradiction between what he said as a
12 year old and the snippets you've reported here. Further
clarification is required.
Ian
Mugwump
UsurperTom wrote:
I don't suppose you can back up your statement with proof? Didn't think so.
Mugwump
paramucho wrote:
> The "cheated on Yoko" episode took place before Sean was born. It is
> possible that the remarks about John having a "violent temper" also
> predate his experiences with Lennon.
I agree that John had a temper, and that there were a few times that is exploded
in a violent way. But I think he learned to control it over the time.
I wouldn't say it was his defining characteristic.
Mister Charlie
NEVER directed physically to my wife or kids (verbally, yes, which is just
as bad but it was *not* denigrating language, just 'don't-do-that-again'
parent type language...). Some people (men, really, as this is a
testosterone thing) with hair-trigger tempers punch walls. Others play
basketball until they're too exhausted to be that mad anymore. Too many
punch other defenseless people. But not everyone who explodes loudly or
profanely hits their kid, their wife, or anyone else. Anger management is
a sorry deficit in a lot of people, and in a traffic situation (road rage:
my specialty :)...) these social time bombs are all crowded together.
I am much better now, thank you.
"Mugwump" <jand...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:3AE04241...@swbell.net...
UsurperTom
>Once again, you rely on unattributed, undocumented statements to prop up your
bullshit.
Remember last summer when Ny and I posted a series of news articles over the
years that depicted Yoko in an unfavorable light. Whenever rmb posters conduct
research and post relevant documents, you Puritans accuse us of "Yoko bashing."
It is hypocritical of you to demand "documentation" when you see information
you don't like. Whenever that documentation is provided, then you attack us
for posting it. Make up your mind!
BTW I'll try to find the the text of those Sean interviews and post them. They
have been posted and discussed in this newsgroup three years ago before you
started posting here. When are you going to cite your sources for your claim
that Paul and Linda used their kids for photo ops?
Tom
UsurperTom
>The "cheated on Yoko" episode took place before Sean was born.
I wonder who told little Sean about that!
>It is
>possible that the remarks about John having a "violent temper" also
>predate his experiences with Lennon.
If Sean remembers John as nothing but a loving father, why would he feel the
need to bring up the "violent temper" in the first place.
Tom
UsurperTom
>I don't suppose you can back up your statement with proof? Didn't think so.
What "proof" do you want? Ian already posted the excerpt.
Tom
Mike Pastore
<judo snip!>
Semi-OT, but: What's the general feeling towards Elliot Mintz in this
NG? I know he's generally citied as John Lennon's best friend at the
time of his death, but my first impressions of him (from interviews on
the tube) were not very good. I remember thinking, "THIS guy was John's
BEST FRIEND?"
But what do YOU think?
--
Mike Pastore
past...@mediaone.net
Mister Charlie
He's not particularly well-thought of, as is Geoff Baker, Paul's flack-man
"Mike Pastore" <past...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3AE05EC0...@mediaone.net...
Mister Charlie
"Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bpn60$adno3$1...@ID-63206.news.dfncis.de...
> Boy have you opened a can of worms....LOL
>
> He's not particularly well-thought of, as is Geoff Baker, Paul's flack-man
>
>
That France
On 20 Apr 2001 15:43:43 GMT usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote:
>Ian wrote:
>The "cheated on Yoko" episode took place before Sean was born.
I wonder who told little Sean about that!
This is both irrelevant and immaterial.
>It is
>possible that the remarks about John having a "violent temper" also
>predate his experiences with Lennon.
If Sean remembers John as nothing but a loving father, why would he feel the
need to bring up the "violent temper" in the first place.
Tom
"He" hasn't been shown by you or anyone else to have brought up the "violent temper." Much less to "have the need" to bring up such a thing.
I have subscribed to New Yorker for 20 years. They have never been online until very recently, and none of the old articles are archived.
You have said "there was a report on BBC that "x" was said.
This is triple hearsay. You don't have the report, the date of it, or any corroboration for this mysterious report.
This is the kind of thing that screws your credibility, Tom.
To say that you and Nylon posted unfavorable articles about Yoko and we are supposed to remember them is pretty silly.
Francie
--
"...to get moving, the mind needs food that
has not already been chewed."
-- Jean Dubuffet, Artist (1900-1984)
Francie's Boot - Like hotcakes.
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944
CaroJ11
Exactly. Rolling Stone magazine 1998. The interview's famous, and many here
saved copies. Incidentally, by that September Sean was receiving death threats
such as "you'll be gunned down like your father" for having publically called
his father a "macho pig" with a violent temper.
FWIW, I'll agree it's highly unlikely Sean adopted the phrase 'macho pig' all
on his own. That's Yoko-speak; we've all read her use the phrase many times.
---CarolJ
paramucho
Why not discuss the issue? Lennon has spoken about his own violent
nature in earlier life and quoted his lines "I used to be cruel to my
woman...".
What we need is the context of the statement. Was Sean Lennon
referring to his father's past, or his own experience of John? That's
unclear. The snippets of text from the Rolling Stone article are
meaningless without that context.
Ian
paramucho
I posted a few isolated two or three word fragments. A fuller text is
required to make sense of these fragments. Without the surrounding
context, these sound-bites are meaningless.
Ian
paramucho
>>
>>Mugwump wrote:
>>
>>>I don't suppose you can back up your statement with proof? Didn't think so.
>>
>>What "proof" do you want? Ian already posted the excerpt.
>>Tom
>
>Exactly. Rolling Stone magazine 1998. The interview's famous, and many here
>saved copies. Incidentally, by that September Sean was receiving death threats
>such as "you'll be gunned down like your father" for having publically called
>his father a "macho pig" with a violent temper.
Perhaps one of those "many here" would like to provide fuller context
than just the fragments we've seen so far:
"violent temper"
"a macho pig"
These terms could be used in many different ways.
Ian
That France
On 20 Apr 2001 16:36:21 GMT car...@aol.com (CaroJ11) wrote:
>Exactly. Rolling Stone magazine 1998. The interview's famous, and many here
saved copies.
Francie: Then why not post the context of this "famous" statement instead of referring to a fragment?
Carol: Incidentally, by that September Sean was receiving death threats
such as "you'll be gunned down like your father" for having publically called
his father a "macho pig" with a violent temper.
Francie Meaningless blather. Where's your citation for this assumption? How the hell would you know the content of these letters?
FWIW, I'll agree it's highly unlikely Sean adopted the phrase 'macho pig' all
on his own. That's Yoko-speak; we've all read her use the phrase many times.
---CarolJ
Out and out bullshit. I've read almost everything she's said and I know her personally. That is not Yoko speak as you call it.
Mark Janovec
Mike Pastore
no, wait, that's just Robert Plant. (turns down the stereo)
This that you say, doth confirm my suspicion. :)
Mister Charlie wrote:
>
> Boy have you opened a can of worms....LOL
>
> He's not particularly well-thought of, as is Geoff Baker, Paul's flack-man
>
> "Mike Pastore" <past...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
> news:3AE05EC0...@mediaone.net...
> >
John
John
were a couple of lunatics, and Yoko a particularly arrogant one.
"Francie" <fab...@best1.net> wrote in message
news:3AE02800...@best1.net...
John
were a couple of lunatics, and Yoko a particularly arrogant one.
"Francie" <fab...@best1.net> wrote in message
news:3AE02800...@best1.net...
That France
I got an important phone call just as I was finishing my post responding to Carol.
I think it's important to share the fact that Yoko expressed concern for Sean's being so "outspoken" when we met fo dinner in September 1999. To which I replied: "He's definitely his father's son." She got misty-eyed and softened visibly.
John was never ever what Yoko or I would call a "macho pig".
Not after he found Yoko. I never saw a hint of pork in John during the time I spent with him. He had a wicked sense of humor and he was angry when Apple turned him down flat when he asked for money to help pay Yoko's debts... but never violent.
Yoko doesn't use that term - about anybody. The worst she said to me during the three hours we spent together was "These men are so slow."
I won't go into a detailed explanation of what she meant; suffice it to say, we agree that women are more evolved than men in general... a far cry from calling her beloved husband a pig.
Sean certainly wouldn't say his father was a macho pig.
What amazes me is the idea that some people in this group hang onto articles in Rolling Stone which were written 18 years after John's death, and yet, dismiss a legitimate published interview because it involves Elliot Mintz.
That's just absurd.
That France
On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:17:42 +1000 "John" <lac...@idx.com.au> wrote:
>What is your need to continually defend John and Yoko.
I posted an interview with some insightful stuff in it. It stimulates discussion, which is what this board is for. No defense needed. These are two of my favorite people. What's your problem with that?
John: By all accounts they
were a couple of lunatics, and Yoko a particularly arrogant one.
By all whose accounts?
You're the arrogant one in this mix, "John". And you don't know what you're talking about - or whom.
Fumika N
>SEAN SPEAKS UP!
It's a wondrous thing to hear Sean speak up! That Lennon wit! That verbal
flair! That philosophical inclination! That annoying lisp!
It's impossible to look at Sean without being reminded of John Lennon. He's
got that aquiline nose. Those chiseled features. That lean build. That
rotund
physique.
And if there's one thing to be said for Sean, it's that he is truly his own
man. Pressed to discuss his first solo album by a journalist from the S.F.
Examiner, independent-minded Sean declined. "I'd rather talk about my mom's
stuff."
Sean seems to have inherited his dad's musical tastes as well. Andy Warhol
learned, on visiting the Dakota in the 80s, that Sean adored the music of
Michael Jackson, Boy George, and Pet Shop Boys.
According to former Lennon best friend, Sean's relationship with Yoko Ono is
idyllic. And according to Sean himself, "If my mom looked like Blondie,
she'd
be the most famous pop singer ever."
I'm sure that the rest of you were as impressed by young Sean's bravery when
I
read of why Yoko Ono & Mintz were "fighting" Goldman. It's because, when
Sean
was told that Goldman portrayed Lennon as a violent man, Sean said
plaintively,
"Mommy, let's fight this one!"
Sean says that the joy he gets from being one of Yoko's backup musicians is
the highest thing he could strive for. He has played bass for her. And if
you didn't know it was Sean on the bass, you'd swear it was Jaco Pastorius.
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fumika N
>swing,
BTW, I'd like to express my admiration of the logic of the approach Mintz &
Ono used to "refute" Goldman.
To prove that Goldman's claims (e.g., that Lennon's marriage to Ono was
troubled; that he took drugs; that he was reclusive & prone to depression)
wer
untrue, Mintz referred people to *John's own public statements*!
Well, the veracity of John's own public statements is precisely what Goldman
was disputing!
In fact, a person who is capable of approaching Goldman without going
spastic
will see that his sources include former Lennon attorney Harold Seider, who
talks about Lennon's habit of BSing the press -- and of having utter
contempt
for the people who uncritically soaked up whatever BS he put out.
So I guess Lennon would really respect lots of the people in this group.
Fumika N
>Francie wrote:
>
>>Once again, you rely on unattributed, undocumented statements to prop up
your
>bullshit.
>
>Remember last summer when Ny and I posted a series of news articles over the
>years that depicted Yoko in an unfavorable light. Whenever rmb posters
conduct
>research and post relevant documents, you Puritans accuse us of "Yoko
bashing."
> It is hypocritical of you to demand "documentation" when you see information
>you don't like. Whenever that documentation is provided, then you attack us
>for posting it. Make up your mind!
It's really admirable the way they accuse you of having no evidence. Then
when
you provide evidence, they demand absolute proof. It's a delightful tactic,
and I applaud their devotion to learning the truth.
"That ain't proof. Where's da proof?"
Personally, I will refuse to consider any contention re: Yoko, unless it is
bac backed up with a videotape that is authorized by Yoko (that pillar of
honesty!) and delivered by Mintz (that paradigm of integrity!).
If no such videotape is forthcoming, the event(s) in question never took
place.
It's quite simple, really.
Mark Janovec
>you didn't know it was Sean on the bass, you'd swear it was Jaco Pastorius.
That bad, huh?
Mark Janovec
other that a way for you to challenge Diana to a flame war. Are you feeling
a bit lonely without the "****ing Jews" flame war? Get outside and enjoy the
nice weather instead (well, at least the weather is nice hear in St. Paul,
MN) if you have nothing else to do.
Francie
Mark Janovec wrote:
> The problem is that your supposedly "insightful" post appeared to be nothing
> other that a way for you to challenge Diana to a flame war. Are you feeling
> a bit lonely without the "****ing Jews" flame war? Get outside and enjoy the
> nice weather instead (well, at least the weather is nice hear in St. Paul,
> MN) if you have nothing else to do.
>
You're the one with the broomstick up your butt, Mark..
Your interpretation of my reason for posting the article tells much more about
your agenda than it does about me.
This is a discussion group about the Beatles and their history. Or have you
forgotten that?
And it's raining and cold here.
I'm not lonely. But I'm pretty bored with your attempt to get me into a fight.
>
> >I posted an interview with some insightful stuff in it. It stimulates
> discussion,
> >which is what this board is for. No defense needed. These are two of my
> >favorite people. What's your problem with that?
--
The voyeur thinks to keep himself clean
by only *seeing* what other people are
capable of doing.
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944
Mugwump
CaroJ11 wrote:
Man, I find that so hard to believe that I would have to read it myself before
I could accept it.
But there is no doubt that John was a difficult person. He could be callous and
cruel; and he could hold grudges.
John was far from perfect. I have never claimed he was perfect.
All I have ever claimed is that he was brilliant and that he has made many
positive contributions to the world through his art and his outspokeness.
Obviously John played a role in the world which demanded a lot of his time. He
wasn't much of a father to Julian for that reason. That's no excuse, but John was
caught in the whirl-wind so to speak. I don't blame Julian for being pissed off
about John's lack of involvement in his life. If John had of been in Julian's
place, and his father had neglected him like that, you can be damned sure John
would have spoken up about his feelings. John was not the type to remain silent
when he thought he had been slighted.
Maybe Sean holds some resentment about John too. Obviously John did things
which hurt Yoko. Sean is closer to Yoko than he could ever be to John. If Sean
harbors ill feelings toward his dad because of that, it is his right to feel that
way, and it is his own business. But I don't think Sean would ever minimize John's
contributions to art and his era and the world at large.
John was no saint. We all know that. He was a contradiction in many ways. But
he will always be an inspiration to many people in spite of that. His message was
a good one, even if it was delivered by a flawed human being.
His good points outweighed his flaws in my opinion.
Francie
Mugwump wrote:
> Maybe Sean holds some resentment about John too. Obviously John did things
> which hurt Yoko.
Is there a husband on this planet who has never done anything to hurt his wife,
intentionally or accidentally?
> Sean is closer to Yoko than he could ever be to John. If Sean
> harbors ill feelings toward his dad because of that, it is his right to feel that
> way, and it is his own business.
I have never read any interview or seen any television documentary that indicates any
resentment of Sean''s toward his father.
The only assertions to that effect I have ever seen is in this newsgroup.
Nuff said.
Francie
Andrew hoch
say that your statement regarding Elliot Mintz makes perfect sense. If
I was a avid collector of news articles about the solo Beatles from over
time, realising that each one presents to me different information from
sources which spoke to Lennon or were very close to him. Do you know
what I would begin to understand? This: Every single person that wrote
or contributed to these articles is presenting information that is just
as relevant as anyone else's. Who are we to judge the vidality of
someone's claims regarding the private life of John and his family. I
know that you have had closer contact with Yoko then most of us ever
will so your opinion on the subject is much more based on facts then
most of the other people in here. Which is good.
I am only coming to the defense of Eliot Mintz because his opinion
is the same as yours. The opinion of someone who has either had contact
with Yoko or has known them for a very long time. That is much more
believable then a person's ideas which are based solely on conjecture. I
know that by saying this I am taking the risk of being unpopular in this
group. In the end it really makes no difference to me because this is a
discussion group not a popularity contest.
Mister Charlie
you purport to be, and your writing style and vocabulary is all over the
road.
Just havin fun with the locals?
Cool. So long as everyone knows that.
Oh yeah, I'm damned to hell for that, right? So long as you're not there, I
can weather it.
"Fumika N" <Fum...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B00...@MailAndNews.com...
Mark Janovec
>Your interpretation of my reason for posting the article tells much more
about
>your agenda than it does about me.
Okay then. You posted a story about Sean which I myself admitted to finding
very interesting. But the only words you added to the article were: "Put
that in your Seaman bag and smoke it Diana!"
Was that really necessary? Didn't the article speak for itself? It's seems
like you were searching long and hard for a reason to say something pointed
to Diana. You also baited her earlier with a post about Goldman. Your
actions speak for themselves. And most people willing to take a few seconds
to consider your motives can easily see what you're trying to do. The flame
wars are over, if you want it (as one other poster so eloquently put it). So
far Diana hasn't dignified you with a response, to which one must applaud
her.
As for my agenda, I don't have one other than to talk about the Beatles. You
won't see me starting any threads in an attempt to ignite a flame war. I
would rather ignite discussions on the Beatles music if at all possible. I
sometimes make the mistake of responding to threads when I should stay
silent (and maybe this is one example), but then again, we all do that from
time to time. If you think I have a different agenda, perhaps you can fill
me in on what it is.
>This is a discussion group about the Beatles and their history. Or have you
>forgotten that?
And baiting Diana has what to do with the Beatles?
>I'm not lonely. But I'm pretty bored with your attempt to get me into a
fight.
Just like we're bored with your attempts at trying to fight with others. I
only called it as I saw it.
At this point, you might feel better if you call me some names and try to
insult me. We expect nothing less from you...even if we wish you were
capable of something more.
UsurperTom
UsurperTom
>To say that you and Nylon posted unfavorable articles about Yoko and we are
>supposed to remember them is pretty silly.
That's not what I said, dipshit! My point was that you get upset whenever
somebody dares to post an article critical of Yoko. You're getting to be like
d. who plays the "I want proof" game whenever another poster reaches a
conclusion about Paul that she finds offensive.
Tom
Mark Janovec
>which hurt Yoko.
Any examples? Seriously, I'm just asking if there are examples since I'm not
aware of many. (I'm not trying to start a flame war...promise).
>Sean is closer to Yoko than he could ever be to John.
Obviously, since John died when Sean was only 5. There's also a bond between
a mother and son which is rarely duplicated between a father and son. And
vice versa.
>His good points outweighed his flaws in my opinion.
I agree with you completely there. I'd go even further to say that the same
could be said for Paul, George, and Ringo too.
Francie
Mark Janovec wrote:
> >You're the one with the broomstick up your butt, Mark..
> >Your interpretation of my reason for posting the article tells much more
> about
> >your agenda than it does about me.
>
> Okay then. You posted a story about Sean which I myself admitted to finding
> very interesting. But the only words you added to the article were: "Put
> that in your Seaman bag and smoke it Diana!"
Diana is perfectly capable of responding or not responding on her own.
You're just trying (and failing) to create a flame war where there is none.
>
>
> Was that really necessary?
Is your followup and continued attempt to make it into something else really
necessary?
Aren't you taking one line a tad too seriously?
Is it your business to defend Diana?
> Didn't the article speak for itself? It's seems
> like you were searching long and hard for a reason to say something pointed
> to Diana.
LOL! Diana does plenty of *pointing* on her own. Or do you agree with her
anti-Yoko stance?
> You also baited her earlier with a post about Goldman.
Ridiculous.
> Your
> actions speak for themselves.
So do yours. You are the only one in this entire thread with their panties in a
bunch.
> And most people willing to take a few seconds
> to consider your motives can easily see what you're trying to do.
Here we go again. Most people... You speak only for yourself.
> The flame
> wars are over, if you want it (as one other poster so eloquently put it). So
> far Diana hasn't dignified you with a response, to which one must applaud
> her.
>
She hasn't got a response. If she did, she would have posted it.
>
> As for my agenda, I don't have one other than to talk about the Beatles.
Bullshit. Your agenda is crystal clear. It's called "Let's you and her fight."
> You
> won't see me starting any threads in an attempt to ignite a flame war.
Give that man the trophy for purity of purpose... NOT
> I
> would rather ignite discussions on the Beatles music if at all possible. I
> sometimes make the mistake of responding to threads when I should stay
> silent (and maybe this is one example), but then again, we all do that from
> time to time. If you think I have a different agenda, perhaps you can fill
> me in on what it is.
See above.
>
>
> >This is a discussion group about the Beatles and their history. Or have you
> >forgotten that?
>
> And baiting Diana has what to do with the Beatles?
>
> >I'm not lonely. But I'm pretty bored with your attempt to get me into a
> fight.
>
> Just like we're bored with your attempts at trying to fight with others. I
> only called it as I saw it.
Phony baloney. Self-serving hypocrite that you are, you use the royal "we"
whenever
you haven't got the guts to say something indefensible on your own.
>
>
> At this point, you might feel better if you call me some names and try to
> insult me. We expect nothing less from you...even if we wish you were
> capable of something more.
What a load of crap.
Take a walk, you're just another disaffected Francie-basher.
Too obvious, too boring and too goddamn serious about yourself and this group.
Francie
Mugwump
Francie wrote:
> Mugwump wrote:
>
> > Maybe Sean holds some resentment about John too. Obviously John did things
> > which hurt Yoko.
>
> Is there a husband on this planet who has never done anything to hurt his wife,
> intentionally or accidentally?
Not many. Besides, John and Yoko were not ordinary people. They constantly challenged
eachother. It was simply in their nature. Who knows what their relationship was like? I
imagine it might seem damn strange to most of us. But as they say, no one knows what goes
on behind closed doors.
Every relationship is different. No two marriages are the same. Their bond was a
strong one, based on the fact that they were two of a kind. There *was* no one else for
them but eachother. If they ever cheated on eachother, I'm sure they knew it wouldn't
kill their relationship. Yoko knew there was no woman who could ever compete with her.
She had something John couldn't help but return to. It was her mind. LOL. John was
hooked. He was not easily challenged, intellectually. He must have gotten bored with
people after awhile if they couldn't challenge his mind. Yoko was never boring.
Likewise John knew there was no one who could ever challenge Yoko like he could. I
think they were pretty secure in the fact that they neither one could live without the
other. Maybe that gave them the security to withstand infidelity, who knows? But that is
their business, and I certainly wouldn't draw any conclusions from that.
That reminds me of Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolffe. George and Martha had a strange
relationship, but it worked. Yes, I know it was fiction. But truth is stranger than
fiction sometimes.
I imagine John and Yoko's relationship defied all means of classification.
>
>
> > Sean is closer to Yoko than he could ever be to John. If Sean
> > harbors ill feelings toward his dad because of that, it is his right to feel that
> > way, and it is his own business.
>
> I have never read any interview or seen any television documentary that indicates any
> resentment of Sean''s toward his father.
Neither have I. That's why I have such a hard time believing it.
>
>
> The only assertions to that effect I have ever seen is in this newsgroup.
Me too. I would have thought that would be big news. I feel sure I would have heard
about it.
UsurperTom
>Is it your business to defend Diana?
Is it your business to defend Yoko?
Tom
Francie
and my experience with him. Basically it boils down to this:
Eliot had his own talk radio show in 1972 when my book came out.
It was on KABC radio in L.A. He did a show with me on the book.
I found him a bit unctuous, a bit of a Beatle worshiper, but otherwise
a very polite and respectful interviewer. Definitely a professional.
I wasn't surprised when a few years later, he became John and Yoko's
friend and spokesperson. He also represents Don Johnson, and has
for all these years.
No matter what one thinks of his persona, his manner, his appearance,
or whatever, that should not affect one's opinion of Yoko or Sean or
what they have to say about John.
Francie
Andrew hoch wrote:
--
Francie
UsurperTom wrote:
Yoko is not a member of this newsgroup.
There's a difference.
You spend plenty of time posting anti-Yoko bullshit, all of it
unsubstantiated.
Tit for tat would be me asking "Is it your business to attack Yoko?
It's bullshit, UTom, and you know it as well as anyone.
Fumika N
>and my experience with him. Basically it boils down to this:
>
>Eliot had his own talk radio show in 1972 when my book came out.
>It was on KABC radio in L.A. He did a show with me on the book.
>
>I found him a bit unctuous, a bit of a Beatle worshiper, but otherwise
>a very polite and respectful interviewer. Definitely a professional.
>I wasn't surprised when a few years later, he became John and Yoko's
>friend and spokesperson. He also represents Don Johnson, and has
>for all these years.
>
>No matter what one thinks of his persona, his manner, his appearance,
>or whatever, that should not affect one's opinion of Yoko or Sean or
>what they have to say about John.
But wouldn't you agree that the friendships we form say a few things
about ourselves? Surely the fact that Yoko would want Mintz around reveals
*something* about Yoko. (May Pang's book has some valuable info re: how
Mintz
developed his "friendship" with Ono. To be brief, he kissed her arse.)
Francie, do you personally believe Mintz's claim that he was John
Lennon's
best friend? It seems to me that Mintz wasn't quite Lennon's type of
person.
UsurperTom
>Yoko is not a member of this newsgroup.
Yoko is a public figure who has more than enough resources to defend herself.
>Tit for tat would be me asking "Is it your business to attack Yoko?
Is it your business to post unkind information about Paul IN YOKO'S NAME?
Thus, Yoko gets blamed for Paul being accused of racism and anti-Semitism in a
Beatles newsgroup.
Tom
Mister Charlie
"Fumika N" <Fum...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B02...@MailAndNews.com...
That France
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:11:44 -0500 Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
>Their bond was a
strong one, based on the fact that they were two of a kind.
From the moment I met them (during a recording session)
I was certain these two were yin and yang, salt and pepper,
day and night... in other words, they were of one mind,
but two very different individuals. To me it seemed as
if they filled each other's empty spots and merged on
a molecular level to form a whole that was greater than
the sum of its parts.
When Yoko and I were cooking breakfast side by side at
Cavendish Avenue and she was saying "It's hard to keep
them happy" I had no idea how true that would turn out
to be.
No matter how much in love she was with John, I'm sure
it didn't get any easier for Yoko over the 12 years of
their marriage. John was particularly difficult to be
married to, for all the obvious reasons as well as the
hidden ones. I think he and I shared the thing we now
call manic-depressive illness. Call it moodswings.
Call it a chemical imbalance. Whatever it is, it
makes sustaining an intimate relationship that much
harder... on both sides.
But I don't think they were two of a kind.
I think they were *one* of a kind.
"Two branches on a tree..."
Doug Campbell
> Yoko doesn't use that term - about anybody. The worst she said to me during the three hours we spent together was "These men are so slow."
> I won't go into a detailed explanation of what she meant; suffice it to say, we agree that women are more evolved than men in general...
Ooh yes, there's nothing more sublime than an evening of white wine,
Indigo Girls and sonogram pictures! :)
Dorothy Valens, The Blue Lady
"Fumika N" <Fum...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B02...@MailAndNews.com...
> *something* about Yoko.
much as the fact that you are really caley butler(aka nyar) reveals that you
are a lamer gutless softcock troll, sure.
LOL!
so tell me nyny, have you tried any rambunctious brews lately?
perhaps an obstreporous ale?
or a maybe lager that is "well behaved in the glass"?
LOLOLOLOL!
SarahVee
>Date: 4/20/01 6:42 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9bqhfn$j82$0...@pita.alt.net>
Ladies & gentlemen, the sound of one man laughing.
CaroJ11
>required to make sense of these fragments. Without the surrounding
>context, these sound-bites are meaningless.>
Here tis: Rolling Stone, June 11, 1998---Sean interviewed by senior editor
David Fricke
Sean: In fact, when you asked about the memories, I didn't want to say it, but
I have some less than happy memories, too. Of him screaming at me, you know?
He definitely had a violent temper. He would get angry sometimes. And, when he
did, the voice that was soothing would become like a knife...I think it was
hard for him to become a sensitive monogamist. Because he was a macho
Liverpudlian. He was a macho pig in lots of ways, and he knew it. I think his
greatest accomplishment was recognizing that he was a macho asshole and trying
to stop it..."Like that song 'Cool Chick Baby'...that's all about him having
sex with some girl at a party where my mom was. When I think back on those
events, and hear about them, I think of my dad as being a huge asshole. And the
only thing that made it OK was that he could admit it. That was his saving
grace. He tried to overcome it.
I don't want people to think I'm being disrespectful. But then again, he's my
dad, and I know better than they do, man. I know he was a great guy. But he was
also an asshole in a lot of ways. There's no question about it." ---CarolJ
Francie
asshole" as well as the "macho pig" remarks refer to John's behavior before Sean
was born.
Of course the additional "in lots of ways and he knew it" makes a huge difference.
As does the part where Sean says John knew it and tried to overcome it.
Plus it shows that there was absolutely no physical violence directed at Sean or
Yoko.
Nice to have it clarified.
CaroJ11 wrote:
--
Francie
UsurperTom wrote:
Have you gone out of your mind, Tom?
Dorothy Valens, The Blue Lady
"SarahVee" <sara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010420195746...@ng-me1.aol.com...
> >LOLOLOLOL!
>
> Ladies & gentlemen, the sound of one man laughing.
oh how wrong can you be...........LOL!
please pass on my sincerst condolences to nyny for being outed as the
gutless troll he truly is......:)
best,
dorothy
John
"That France" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4201138....@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 04:17:42 +1000 "John" <lac...@idx.com.au> wrote:
>
> >What is your need to continually defend John and Yoko.
>
> I posted an interview with some insightful stuff in it. It stimulates
discussion, which is what this board is for. No defense needed. These are
two of my favorite people. What's your problem with that?
>
> John: By all accounts they
> were a couple of lunatics, and Yoko a particularly arrogant one.
>
>
> By all whose accounts?
>
> You're the arrogant one in this mix, "John". And you don't know what
you're talking about - or whom.
paramucho
wrote:
> But wouldn't you agree that the friendships we form say a few things
>about ourselves? Surely the fact that Yoko would want Mintz around reveals
>*something* about Yoko.
Sure it does. But to follow the point being made, *you* can only
conjectured what what that *something* is because you don't know Yoko
and you don't know Mintz. All you know are their public "images",
which are even more missleading than, say, a Usenet image of a person.
So, sure it "reveals *something*", however all you can do is
"conjecture" what that something is. So, you're back in the same boat.
Ian
paramucho
Many thanks for posting the full context.
I'm reminded of the "Jesus" thing with John - it's the context which
makes the meaning of the remarks clear.
Sean is *not* saying here that he has memories of his father being
violent with him physically -- and that was the implication of the
isolated fragments posted previously.
Sean's remarks need no explanation when seen in full. Very real.
Well, they *seem* to be real, but since I've never met either of them,
how would I know? Beyond conjecture?
Ian
Mister Charlie
across as being formed by his mother (if correctly quoted).
But the essence of what he was saying is correct. Maybe the word 'asshole'
puts some people off. John never hid his sharper inclinations, and it's no
secret he could blow up in the pressure cooker he was in. Again, as one
poster said, we're getting into 'behind closed doors' areas now. Father son
parent stuff...who knows why he was screaming at Sean? Maybe Sean started
the curtains on fire or something. We don't have that information.
But I am heartened to see that Sean recognizes the fact his dad was aware
of his own male proclivities and spent years trying to change himself along
with the rest of late twentieth-century society's awakening to equality for
all, races and sexes. Well, the two main sexes anyway.
"Francie" <fab...@best1.net> wrote in message
news:3AE0EEF0...@best1.net...
Mister Charlie
"paramucho" <i...@beathoven.com> wrote in message
news:3ae3084d...@news.remarq.com...<sniperola>
>
> Sean's remarks need no explanation when seen in full. Very real.
>
> Well, they *seem* to be real, but since I've never met either of them,
> how would I know? Beyond conjecture?
>
>
> Ian
>
Doug Campbell
relationship with either of my parents from when I was just turned 4 or
younger. I find the whole notion of anybody basing any kind of
assessment of Lennon's character on a grown man's 'memories' from the
age of two or three ridiculous.
Whether or not those *impressions* were formed at the time or were
developed later is another story altogether... but even in context I
think the remarks are at best inappropriate and I'll leave it at that.
DC
That France
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:10:40 -0700 "Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The kid was 5 years old fer chrissake. His thoughts are definitley coming
across as being formed by his mother (if correctly quoted).
I'm amazed that you (and Doug, apparently) think that the son
of two brilliant people can't remember his childhood, or that
his thoughts about his own father were *formed* by his mother!
As Doug said, speaking only for himself, he can't remember that far back.
I remember stuff that happened when I was three, and some things even earlier. It's not unusual at all.
What Sean said to RS at 22 would *not* imo be formed
in any way by his mother. He is and was fully aware
of "the press" and, like his father, had few inhibitions
when it came to expressing whatever he was feeling at
any given time. As I said, Yoko sometimes worries
about Sean being "very outspoken".
Didn't anyone see the Yoko special on Bravo? Sean talked
about his mother being someone who is always working and his understanding of her need to be out and about, working and
creating all the time. That's certainly not the picture of the stay-at-home mom "forming his thoughts" about his father.
That France
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:10:40 -0700 "Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The kid was 5 years old fer chrissake. His thoughts are definitley coming
across as being formed by his mother (if correctly quoted).
Dammit, I think I just erased the post I wrote.
Instead of sending it.
Here we go:
I am amazed that you think the child of two brilliant people can't possibly have his own thoughts and memories of his own childhood.
I remember things that happened when I was three. It's not unusual.
Yoko (according to Sean in the Bravo special about Yoko) is someone who has to be working all the time. She was hardly the sort of mom who tries to form her own child's thoughts. She wasn't around for the first five years of Sean's life... John was the primary caregiver. Sean recognizes the fact that his father was actually more *maternal* than Yoko.
This matches up perfectly with what Yoko told me about herself in 1968... that she's not a stay-at-home type mom.
Also, in 1998 Sean was 22. A fully formed adult with a mercurial temperament and an understanding of the difference between *the press* and his friends. Like John, he is "outspoken" at times and extremely private and introspective at other times.
Why this is so hard to imagine (Doug said the same thing - that he can't remember stuff that happened when he was a toddler) is beyond me.
Francie
It's clear from the tiny excerpt that he thinks for himself. It is also clear that he is referring to stories his mother told him - but he has formed his own thoughts, definitely.
Dorothy Valens, The Blue Lady
> > I remember things that happened when I was three. It's not unusual.
in images and impressions maybe, but not in english sentences and cognitive
memories you dont.
and it *is* most unsual in fact for peeps to remember much before 4 or 5.
That France
Well maybe where you come from it's unusual... but I do remember cognitive thoughts. I spoke my first complete sentence at 9 months.
F
Diana
>>so tell me nyny, have you tried any rambunctious brews lately?
>>
>>perhaps an obstreporous ale?
>>
>>or a maybe lager that is "well behaved in the glass"?
>>
>>LOLOLOLOL!
>
> Ladies & gentlemen, the sound of one man laughing.
As a newsletter-subscribing Buddhist, Nick should appreciate the humor, Sarah
;-)
- - - - - -
Hari Scruffs : http://www.hariscruffs.com
CaroJ11
>Carol: Incidentally, by that September Sean was receiving death threats
>such as "you'll be gunned down like your father" for having publically called
>his father a "macho pig" with a violent temper.
>
>Francie: Meaningless blather. Where's your citation for this assumption? How
>the hell would you know the content of these letters?>> Francie
LOL. This "meaningless blather" is all over the Sean Lennon websites.
Apparently Yoko was scared to death, beefed up security, and turned all this
hate mail over to the police. "It would be more than
Yoko could bear, " says an insider [Mintz, of course,]" to lose her son like
she lost
John."
What I find curious, Francie, is apparently you don't know anything about this
---odd for one who's such a close friend of Yoko's and all! Apparently an
autographed photo and one dinner do not a friendship make. ---CarolJ
Lizz Holmans
<i...@beathoven.com> writes
>Many thanks for posting the full context.
>
>I'm reminded of the "Jesus" thing with John - it's the context which
>makes the meaning of the remarks clear.
>
>Sean is *not* saying here that he has memories of his father being
>violent with him physically -- and that was the implication of the
>isolated fragments posted previously.
>
>Sean's remarks need no explanation when seen in full. Very real.
>
>Well, they *seem* to be real, but since I've never met either of them,
>how would I know? Beyond conjecture?
Don't most of us have memories of being yelled at by our parents? I
hardly see this as a unique event in Sean's childhood. I know I didn't
like being yelled at by my grandmother (who raised my sisters and me),
but no one has interviewed me for the national media about it.
Another thing to remember is the anger that is inevitable when a parent
dies before a child is an adult. Kids don't understand fully that when a
parent dies it's not because they *meant* to. I was several years older
than Sean when my grandfather died, but still a child, and it took years
to realize that he didn't go away voluntarily (needless to say, this
anger is usually subconscious, but it's still there, and manifests
itself in many different ways).
Sean's language may have been ineloquent, but I understand the feeling
behind it. I was not at all offended by it. He was speaking of his
memories as a small child. The fact that he could understand and express
his further realizations that John was a human being with faults *and*
virtues to me demonstrates some mighty good parenting going on
somewhere.
Lizz 'Today is the Younger Imp's 10th birthday. One of us is getting
awfully old' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Francie
CaroJ11 wrote:
>
> LOL. This "meaningless blather" is all over the Sean Lennon websites.
Then it *must* be true!
>
> Apparently Yoko was scared to death, beefed up security, and turned all this
> hate mail over to the police. "It would be more than
> Yoko could bear, " says an insider [Mintz, of course,]" to lose her son like
> she lost
> John."
"says an insider" is the tabloid giveaway. But that's what you like best.
>
>
> What I find curious, Francie, is apparently you don't know anything about this
> ---odd for one who's such a close friend of Yoko's and all! Apparently an
> autographed photo and one dinner do not a friendship make. ---CarolJ
Jealous much, Carol?
What autographed photo?
Foolish tabloid junky that you are, you probably think that's rilly rilly
significant.
Franny (this sig's for you, baby)
Mister Charlie
The 15 tears Sean spent alone with Yoko he was indeed 'formed' by his
mother, as are we all to some extent. Very few people in my experience can
remember anything before 3. Regardless, what does a 5 year old see vs a 20
year old? I mean there is no comparison between a child and an adult view
of one's life.
I was not denigrating Sean's ability to remember his dad, or to interpret
those memories 15 years later. Nor was I nailing Yoko for presumably
teaching him these things. In the time they had to grow up together of
course this stuff was going to come up. Obviously Sean had to address his
father's constant prescence, the books written about him would naturally
lead to Yoko having to explain to Sean what really happened, how it
happened, etc. I imagine when he was a teen and more able to withstand some
truths she would have shared that with him.
Do I think Yoko brainwasged sean? No, of course not, not any more than any
parent forms a kid's growth and thoughts. Did I say anything about 'stay at
home mom forming thoughts'? But 'macho pig' is a very feminist oriented
sort of a phrase, not too many guys come up with that one on their own. Is
it possible? Sure, Sean is very bright, and presumably pretty aware, and as
John before him, he may well be fighting all his life to supress the baser
male characteristics, thanks to growing up in a pretty free environment
(philisophically speaking).
But as to what *I* said (Dou's on his own) I stand by it. I don't even see
anything that controversial about it.
"That France" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:421142....@corp.supernews.com...
Francie
Philip Sondericker wrote:
> Francie wrote:
>
> > This one answer shows clearly that the "cheating on mom" as well as the "huge
> > asshole" as well as the "macho pig" remarks refer to John's behavior before Sean
> > was born.
>
> It also seems to indicate that an individual is capable of changing over time--even
> short periods of time. Hence my repeated questions as to how your brief relationship
> with Paul gives you insight into his character 33 years later.
Mister Charlie
LOL
>
> It's clear from the tiny excerpt that he thinks for himself. It is also
clear that he is referring to stories his mother told him - but he has
formed his own thoughts, definitely.
> I totally agree and never meant to infer otherwise. Now. As an adult.
But what I was referring to was the 15 or so years in between. Of course
Yoko influenced his thinking, big time. That's her job and she had to do it
as a single parent. Sean did not come into this world fully formed and
aware (like me).
Mister Charlie
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:08:57 +1000 "Dorothy Valens, The Blue Lady"
<Bens...@tits.street> wrote:
>
> >
> "That France" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:421153....@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I remember things that happened when I was three. It's not unusual.
>
> in images and impressions maybe, but not in english sentences and
cognitive
> memories you dont.
>
> and it *is* most unsual in fact for peeps to remember much before 4 or 5.
>
>
>
>
> Well maybe where you come from it's unusual... but I do remember cognitive
thoughts. I spoke my first complete sentence at 9 months.
those memories are rather suspect. Impressions, colors, pictures, yes, but
as Nick said, not cognitive thoughts. 9 months huh? Wow. (I DO remember
Chapter One of BC but I can't remember how old you were when you interrupted
the folks.)
Mister Charlie
"Lizz Holmans" <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q$hCCBAje...@jackalope.demon.co.uk...
Dorothy Valens, The Blue Lady
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:08:57 +1000 "Dorothy Valens, The Blue Lady"
<Bens...@tits.street> wrote:
>
> >
> "That France" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:421153....@corp.supernews.com...
> > > I remember things that happened when I was three. It's not unusual.
>
> in images and impressions maybe, but not in english sentences and
cognitive
> memories you dont.
>
> and it *is* most unsual in fact for peeps to remember much before 4 or 5.
>
>
>
>
> Well maybe where you come from it's unusual... but I do remember cognitive
thoughts. I spoke my first complete sentence at 9 months.
rubbish.
until we're approx. five, we have no cognitive responses in real terms.
we feel, we see, but we dont "think" in the true sense of the word.
ask any psychologist, franny,they'll tell you that its nice to have such
high falutin sense of self worth, but the facts are that kids under five
dont "think" in any real sense of theword..
so if someone told you that you spoke your first full sentence at 9 months,
they're bullshittin' ya babe.
it's as simple as that.......:)
Mugwump
That France wrote:
> This is really a sidebar sort of note... not an argument!
>
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:11:44 -0500 Mugwump <jand...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> >Their bond was a
> strong one, based on the fact that they were two of a kind.
>
> From the moment I met them (during a recording session)
> I was certain these two were yin and yang, salt and pepper,
> day and night... in other words, they were of one mind,
> but two very different individuals. To me it seemed as
> if they filled each other's empty spots and merged on
> a molecular level to form a whole that was greater than
> the sum of its parts.
>
> When Yoko and I were cooking breakfast side by side at
> Cavendish Avenue and she was saying "It's hard to keep
> them happy" I had no idea how true that would turn out
> to be.
>
> No matter how much in love she was with John, I'm sure
> it didn't get any easier for Yoko over the 12 years of
> their marriage. John was particularly difficult to be
> married to, for all the obvious reasons as well as the
> hidden ones. I think he and I shared the thing we now
> call manic-depressive illness. Call it moodswings.
> Call it a chemical imbalance. Whatever it is, it
> makes sustaining an intimate relationship that much
> harder... on both sides.
>
> But I don't think they were two of a kind.
>
> I think they were *one* of a kind.
Yes, that may be a better way of discribing it.
I guess what I am basically trying to say is that when people judge their
relationship, they shouldn't read too much into John and Yoko's treatment of eachother,
or even infilelities. They were so "interlocked" with eachother, spiritually and
intellectually, that their relationship was probably more elastic than most
relationships. And they were such unusual people that we can't expect them to be like
everyone else.
After I re-read one of my sentences, where I put " LOL" after the fact that John
loved Yoko for her mind, I realized that could be misinterpreted to mean that I didn't
care for her looks. But that is not true. I find Yoko very sexy. She could put her shoes
under my bed anytime.
What I was laughing about was the fact that John had finally met his match. He was so
intrigued and stimulated by Yoko that he just couldn't stay away from her. He had to
keep going back for more. I find that a little funny because John was such an
independent person. But he was hooked on Yoko in spite of himself.
I don't think John could have stood to be away from Yoko for those extended periods of
time if he hadn't of known she would be waiting for him when he got back. I think if he
really thought she might leave him, he would run back to make sure that didn't happen.
But then again, he probably knew she was as hooked on him as he was on her, so in that
respect they were probably very secure about the strength of their relationship.
>
>
> "Two branches on a tree..."
Francie
definitely not "molded" by his mother, who was working full-time starting
immediately after John's death.
He's very independent.
I think you imagine a much more intimate relationship with Yoko than the
reality, Charlie.
Francie
Mister Charlie wrote:
--
Francie
"Dorothy Valens, The Blue Lady" wrote:
> "That France" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:421244....@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 19:08:57 +1000 "Dorothy Valens, The Blue Lady"
> <Bens...@tits.street> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > "That France" <waro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:421153....@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > I remember things that happened when I was three. It's not unusual.
> >
> > in images and impressions maybe, but not in english sentences and
> cognitive
> > memories you dont.
> >
> > and it *is* most unsual in fact for peeps to remember much before 4 or 5.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Well maybe where you come from it's unusual... but I do remember cognitive
> thoughts. I spoke my first complete sentence at 9 months.
>
> rubbish.
Sez you.
>
>
> until we're approx. five, we have no cognitive responses in real terms.
That's bullshit. Speak for yourself.
>
>
> we feel, we see, but we dont "think" in the true sense of the word.
That is abolsute crap, Nick.
>
>
> ask any psychologist, franny,they'll tell you that its nice to have such
> high falutin sense of self worth, but the facts are that kids under five
> dont "think" in any real sense of theword..
Read some books, Nick. Psychologists have no monopoly on the truth about
childhood.
Research in the 90's has shown just the opposite to be true.
>
>
> so if someone told you that you spoke your first full sentence at 9 months,
> they're bullshittin' ya babe.
>
> it's as simple as that.......:)
Your simpleminded and smug answers are pretty fuckin arrogant.
My parents never bullshitted me. My first sentence (written in my "baby book"
with date and my age) was "Take me for a ride." My dad took me up in a plane
when I was six months old.
Francie
Mister Charlie
> Sean went to school in Switzerland. He read a lot independently. He was
> definitely not "molded" by his mother, who was working full-time starting
> immediately after John's death.
>
> He's very independent.
>
> I think you imagine a much more intimate relationship with Yoko than the
> reality, Charlie.
OK, I think I see the problem here. You believe when I say 'molded' I mean
'controlled', but that is not it at all. You often hear and use the term
about a child being molded in his/her father's/mother's image. That's how I
meant it, as a descriptive rather than a perjorative.
Hell, we're all molded in God's image and look at us!
Fumika N
Surely this is a parody of New-Age twaddle? Not bad. Delusions such
as
"Only conjecture can be offered as to why Mintz & Ono were drawn to each
other"; "One needs to be personally acquainted with Mintz & Ono in order to
know anything about them"; "All that can be known about Mintz & Ono are
their
public images"; etc., are popular among New-Agers, and parody is one way to
put such sorry nonsense in its place. Again, well done!
------------------------------------------------------------
Get your FREE web-based e-mail and newsgroup access at:
http://MailAndNews.com
Create a new mailbox, or access your existing IMAP4 or
POP3 mailbox from anywhere with just a web browser.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fumika N
>That France wrote:
>
>> Yoko doesn't use that term - about anybody. The worst she said to me during
the three hours we spent together was "These men are so slow."
I guess this vacuous comment of Yoko's is forgivable if we remember
that
she prefers men who are unintelligent, obsequious, or infantilistic.
Francie
Philip Sondericker wrote:
> Francie wrote:
>
> > Obsess much, Phil?
>
> That remains to be seen--I'm only 36 now, but if in a couple of decades I'm still
> spending most of my time talking and writing about a relationship I had 33 years before,
> then I think you can safely call me "obsessed".
Fumika N
>Ian wrote:
>
>>The "cheated on Yoko" episode took place before Sean was born.
>
>I wonder who told little Sean about that!
And if a single inebriated one-night stand is reason for deeming John a
"macho pig," what does little Sean make of his mother's various affairs? I
suppose that they merely demonstrate how generous she is w/ her, um, love.
Fumika N
>Sean went to school in Switzerland. He read a lot independently.
A lot of Yoko's interviews? Because his comments (e.g., that, if only
Yoko looked like Deborah Harry, her "songwriting" would be popular) are
often
indistinguishable from those of Ono, Mintz, & Havadtoy.
> He was definitely not "molded" by his mother,
Something sure as hell happened. The notion that working as Yoko's
sideman is his highest possible calling didn't appear in his brain
spontaneously.
> who was working full-time starting immediately after John's death.
That's right, she was having Lennon's will vetted.
Fumika N
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:10:40 -0700 "Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>>The kid was 5 years old fer chrissake. His thoughts are definitley coming
>across as being formed by his mother (if correctly quoted).
>
>
>I'm amazed that you (and Doug, apparently) think that the son
That's highly debatable. And even if Sean were JL's son, how much
mileage do you really get from that? Yoko whipped the daylights out of
John!
> can't remember his childhood, or that
>his thoughts about his own father were *formed* by his mother!
If I understand them, they don't say that he can't remember his
childhood. They say that Sean's memories probably don't extend any further
back than those of normal people.
And who do you suppose *did* inform Sean about Lennon's affair in '72?
It seems unlikely that Sean witnessed it personally.
Mister Charlie
Abandon all pretense did we?
"Fumika N" <Fum...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3AEF...@MailAndNews.com...
Fumika N
>So now the worm turns, Fuk?
>
>Abandon all pretense did we?
It was parody more than pretense, MC.
Lizz Holmans
<Fum...@MailAndNews.com> writes
>>===== Original Message From "Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> =====
>>So now the worm turns, Fuk?
>>
>>Abandon all pretense did we?
>
> It was parody more than pretense, MC.
Well, I say it was spinach.
Lizz 'And you know what comes next' Holmans
--
Lizz Holmans
Mister Charlie
kind of over the top, easy to spot after awhile
still, had a few of us going, and got another week of posts somewhat on
topic so what the hey...
"Fumika N" <Fum...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3AEF...@MailAndNews.com...
Fumika N
>Why not discuss the issue? Lennon has spoken about his own violent
>nature in earlier life and quoted his lines "I used to be cruel to my
>woman...".
That's right, Lennon himself has admitted to his violence, in songs as
well as interviews. There are also all sorts of reliable witnesses to it.
At
least one of Ono's miscarriages were due to beatings Ono had received from
Lennon, as Ono had confided to Arlene Reckson.
Which makes it odd that, in the program 60 Minutes did on "The Lives of
John Lennon," Yoko Ono insisted that Lennon had never been violent with her.
Conveniently enough, Ono's new story evolved just in time for her to dispute
Goldman's portrait of JL as violent.
Fumika N
>What is your need to continually defend John and Yoko. By all accounts they
>were a couple of lunatics, and Yoko a particularly arrogant one.
You've got that right. The Beatles' music, Ono has said, was "simple
music...a waste of time." But as for her own (wretchedly inept) "music"?
It's "revolutionary art." And Ono should know, since she invented
conceptual
art, or so she claims.
>> Mintz reminded Sean that these stories came from Fred Seaman and
>> Marnie Hair.
Mintz was lying, as usual. Goldman's list of sources is impressive.
And
the insinuation that Seaman and Hair aren't trustworthy is wrong to begin
with.
Fumika N
=====
>>And if
>>you didn't know it was Sean on the bass, you'd swear it was Jaco Pastorius.
>
>That bad, huh?
Yeah. He needs to take some lessons.
Dorothy Valens, The Blue Lady
"Fumika N" <Fum...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
> >===== Original Message From i...@beathoven.com =====
> >On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:59:30 -0400, Fumika N <Fum...@MailAndNews.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> But wouldn't you agree that the friendships we form say a few
things
> >>about ourselves? Surely the fact that Yoko would want Mintz around
reveals
> >>*something* about Yoko.
> >
> >Sure it does. But to follow the point being made, *you* can only
> >conjectured what what that *something* is because you don't know Yoko
> >and you don't know Mintz. All you know are their public "images",
> >which are even more missleading than, say, a Usenet image of a person.
> >
> >So, sure it "reveals *something*", however all you can do is
> >"conjecture" what that something is. So, you're back in the same boat.
>
> Surely this is a parody of New-Age twaddle? Not bad. Delusions such
> as
> "Only conjecture can be offered as to why Mintz & Ono were drawn to each
> other"; "One needs to be personally acquainted with Mintz & Ono in order
to
> know anything about them"; "All that can be known about Mintz & Ono are
> their
> public images"; etc., are popular among New-Agers, and parody is one way
to
> put such sorry nonsense in its place. Again, well done!
isnt it time you took the kimono off, caley?
after all , kimonos dont go with turtle neck jumpers and pimply faced
college weens like you......;)
UsurperTom
>Apparently Yoko was scared to death, beefed up security, and turned all this
>hate mail over to the police.
Also, some sycophants in this newsgroup attacked Sean and compared him to
Goldman when the interview came out three years ago.
Tom
paramucho
wrote:
>>===== Original Message From "John" <lac...@idx.com.au> =====
>>What is your need to continually defend John and Yoko. By all accounts they
>>were a couple of lunatics, and Yoko a particularly arrogant one.
>
> You've got that right. The Beatles' music, Ono has said, was "simple
>music...a waste of time." But as for her own (wretchedly inept) "music"?
>It's "revolutionary art." And Ono should know, since she invented
>conceptual
>art, or so she claims.
>
>>> Mintz reminded Sean that these stories came from Fred Seaman and
>>> Marnie Hair.
>
> Mintz was lying, as usual. Goldman's list of sources is impressive.
>And
>the insinuation that Seaman and Hair aren't trustworthy is wrong to begin
>with.
Yep, same old Ny, in full technicolor.
BTW: There's no need to duplicate your posts in e-mail...
Ian
CaroJ11
>Goldman when the interview came out three years ago.
>Tom
I'd forgotten this, Tom, but you're absolutely right.
(Francie thinks I'm jealous of her. I'm thinking. Is a month as McCartney's
maid and one dinner with silly Ono worth a life-time reputation as an
ex-Penthouse columnist, an ex-Gordon Liddy-something, and the current worst
smut mouth in an internet Beatles newsgroup? I don't know. After all...it's not
like he was John Lennon... <g>) ---CarolJ
Mike
university" to learn of Yokos' contributions to the worlds of philosophy,
science and the arts???
Dammit, I hope the deposit is refundable!!
Fumika N wrote:
--
*************
Mike
Mugwump
Mark Janovec wrote:
> > Maybe Sean holds some resentment about John too. Obviously John did things
> >which hurt Yoko.
>
> Any examples?
Yoko has said so herself. And John has admited to hurting her, emotionally
speaking. I would have to go back and read the Playboy interviews to be sure
what it was about precisly. I think it was infidelity and just being hurtful to
eachother when they had disagreements.
> Seriously, I'm just asking if there are examples since I'm not
> aware of many. (I'm not trying to start a flame war...promise).
>
> >Sean is closer to Yoko than he could ever be to John.
>
> Obviously, since John died when Sean was only 5. There's also a bond between
> a mother and son which is rarely duplicated between a father and son. And
> vice versa.
Yes. I am sure that much of what Sean is as a person can be traced back to
the nurturing he got from John in his early life. But he was only 5 when John
died. Kids find it hard to remember things from that far back. Although I am
sure Sean has some very clear memories of his father, he has spent much more
time with Yoko, and probably knows her better than he will ever know his father.
>
>
> >His good points outweighed his flaws in my opinion.
>
> I agree with you completely there. I'd go even further to say that the same
> could be said for Paul, George, and Ringo too.
Fumika N
>Does this mean I don't need to take those classes from "any major
>university" to learn of Yokos' contributions to the worlds of philosophy,
>science and the arts???
Right. The notion that Yoko contributed anything to philosophy is as
big
a joke as the notion that she contributed anything worthwhile to art of
music.
Aside from the 4/3 waltz, that is!