The truth about Heather Mills?
Jen
TRUTH ABOUT HEATHER MILLS: I HOPE HEATHER DOES NOT BREAK PAUL'S HEART..
`BUYER BEWARE' SHOULD BE STAMPED ON HER BROW
Former husband's TRUE untold story about his roller-coaster marriage to the
model who has won Macca's heart
THE ex-husband of Sir Paul McCartney's new love Heather Mills last night
warned the ex-Beatle: "Beware! Don't let her break your heart like she broke
mine."
Revealing for the first time the shocking true story of their roller-
coaster marriage, millionaire businessman Alfie Karmal said: "Heather is a
free spirit who always moves on.
"She should have `Buyer Beware' stamped on her forehead for anybody who
falls in love with her. I just hope for Paul's sake it doesn't end in
heartbreak - like our marriage did."
In a no-holds-barred interview, Alfie, 42, told how he fell in love with
Heather when she was a sexy teenage cocktail waitress.
This is a far cry from her current goody-goody image as a successful charity
campaigner and the girl who has mended Macca's heart after the death of his
wife Linda.
Alfie and Heather had sex together the first night they met but their
relationship was soon dominated by her tantrums, rows and deceit.
Alfie revealed how Heather:
VISITED a psychiatrist in a bid to stop her compulsive lying;
GOT HOOKED on plastic surgery on her boobs;
ADORED spending his cash on luxury foreign holidays and expensive meals;
FLOGGED a BMW car that he gave her so she could run off with her lover.
Company director Alfie said: "Marrying Heather was the biggest mistake of my
life. But she was so gorgeous that I just fell hopelessly in love. I wish
her and Paul all the best - but I wouldn't put a penny on it lasting the
distance.
"My message to him is: `Enjoy it while you can and make the most of it while
it lasts.'"
Alfie has broken his silence on his marriage to Heather despite being
attacked in her auto-biography five years ago. He said he wanted to warn
Macca what he was letting himself in for after the ex-Beatle and Heather
went public with their romance last month.
Alfie first met Heather, now 31, when she was just 18 and working in a
London bar called Bananas.
The mutual attraction was immediate and they slept together that first
night. Alfie said: "The sex was passionate and frantic - like it always is
when two people who fancy each other go to bed for the first time. We were
both drunk and started kissing before going into the bedroom. Then it was
just a blur of passion.
"I remember thinking what great breasts she had and these endless, sexy
legs. Any man would have fallen for her."
Alfie certainly had fallen for Heather and the couple quickly became an
item. But it wasn't long before he started to realise that his beautiful
young lover was not all sweetness and light.
Alfie said: "She would lie about the most stupid little things and have
terrible temper tantrums.
"One night we were having a meal and disagreed about something incredibly
petty like what we wanted to watch on TV.
"She picked up my dinner plate and emptied it over my head.
Loyal
"She told me she had brilliant A-levels which was completely untrue, and
that she had been a down-and-out at King's Cross.
"It got so bad that I told her I would not marry her unless she saw a shrink
to stop the lies and curb her temper.
"I paid for the sessions, about six or eight in all. The shrink told her
that she didn't need to exaggerate things to make people warm to her and
that she had to calm down for her own good.
"She seemed to listen and take it all in and I had high hopes. But deep
down, she never changed."
Although he was intensely aware of Heather's problems, Alfie remained
fiercely loyal to her through their six years together.
It was he who encouraged her modelling ambitions. He took hundreds of sexy
pictures of her on their first holiday in Tenerife.
Alfie said: "She was a complete natural in front of the camera. She looked
fantastic - especially in the topless shots. But amazingly no agencies were
interested.
"Despite what she tells people now, she had no success at all as a model all
the time we were together. But she was desperate to be famous in a glamorous
profession. It didn't matter whether it was modelling or on TV."
Alfie was becoming a successful businessman and was happy to spend his money
on Heather. He showered her with gifts - including a pounds 20,000 BMW and
gold Cartier necklaces - and took her on holiday to Jamaica and St Lucia.
When the couple got married on May 6, 1989, Alfie paid for a lavish
reception at the exclusive Cloisters Country Club in Stanmore, Middlesex. He
also bought them a pounds 400,000 home in Hoddesdon, Herts.
But even before they got wed, Heather had tested Alfie's patience and
understanding to the limit.
Just two days after SHE had proposed to HIM, she disappeared without
warning. Alfie said: "I couldn't believe it. One minute we were planning to
get married, the next she had vanished. I didn't hear from her for weeks but
then I heard she was in France with some bloke called George.
"I was devastated. Then three months later, she just turned up at Dover,
phoned me and asked if I wanted to make a go of it again.
"I drove through the night to pick her up. To this day I don't know why I
took her back. But I was in love and love is blind."
For a few months after they got married, Alfie and Heather were as happy as
they had ever been.
They were delighted when Heather became pregnant but their joy was short-
lived after she suffered an ectopic pregnancy. Cruelly, the same thing
happened when she became pregnant again a year later. Alfie said: "We were
both devastated. We thought a child would be the icing on the cake for the
marriage.
"Heather seemed to be at her wits end. She wondered if she would ever be
able to have a child and I was desperate to make her happy."
Incredibly, it was a loving gesture from Alfie that led to Heather meeting
the man she would eventually leave him for.
He said: "She had always been desperate to go skiing and I thought it would
be a good way to help her recover. When she came back, she was full of it
and I was pleased to see her happy.
"I went to work as normal on the Monday - but when I got home I noticed that
the glass panel next to the front door was smashed. I thought I'd been
burgled.
"I went inside and the place looked like a bomb had hit it. But it wasn't a
burglar - it was the wreckage Heather had left as she bolted from the house.
"The glass panel had smashed because she had slammed the door so hard when
she left. I was frantic with worry.
"But later I discovered she had sold the beautiful pounds 20,000 BMW 325i
convertible I had bought her to a local dealer for just pounds 13,000 so she
could get hold of some cash.
"Then everything fell into place. I rang a friend who had gone on the skiing
trip with Heather and she confessed that she had fallen for a ski instructor
called Milos.
"What an idiot I felt. I was Heather's husband and I had funded her trip to
see her lover out of my own pocket. I was totally humiliated. I decided
there and then our marriage was finished."
Alfie immediately applied for a divorce which was granted within weeks on
the grounds of Heather's adultery. He has since remarried and has a
two-year-old daughter.
But Heather has left a string of broken hearts behind her since splitting
from Alfie. And he believes her record of flitting from man to man should
ring the alarm bells for Sir Paul.
He said: "Heather loves the idea of being in love. She has this romantic
dream. But when it comes to commitment and responsibility she finds it
difficult.
"She is a free spirit and a fiercely ambitious one. Going out with one of
the world's most famous men will suit her purpose for a while. But the age
gap is huge.
"I hope for his sake he doesn't get too close because he might just end up
getting badly hurt.
"She has always been desperate to be liked and admired.
"But controlling her is like trying to ride a wild racehorse.
"I hope Paul has better luck than me in working her out - but I wouldn't put
money on it."
JLS
Jen skrev i meldingen <8cp76q$mis$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>From the Sunday People: www.people.co.uk
>
>TRUTH ABOUT HEATHER MILLS: I HOPE HEATHER DOES NOT BREAK PAUL'S HEART..
>`BUYER BEWARE' SHOULD BE STAMPED ON HER BROW
I wonder what Heather would have stamped on her ex-husband's .........
I wonder what " people" paid him to tell the story.
JLS
PrincesPushy
>
>VISITED a psychiatrist in a bid to stop her compulsive lying;
>
>GOT HOOKED on plastic surgery on her boobs;
>
>ADORED spending his cash on luxury foreign holidays and expensive meals;
>
>FLOGGED a BMW car that he gave her so she could run off with her lover.
>
>Company director Alfie said: "Marrying Heather was the biggest mistake of my
>life. But she was so gorgeous that I just fell hopelessly in love. I wish
>her and Paul all the best - but I wouldn't put a penny on it lasting the
>distance.
>
>"My message to him is: `Enjoy it while you can and make the most of it while
>it lasts.'"
>
Nope. You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to
walk away, and know when to run.
RUN, PAUL, RUN!!!
paramucho
>>
>>TRUTH ABOUT HEATHER MILLS: I HOPE HEATHER DOES NOT BREAK PAUL'S HEART..
>>`BUYER BEWARE' SHOULD BE STAMPED ON HER BROW
>
>
>
>I wonder what " people" paid him to tell the story.
Sunday Paper's don't bother to pay much -- they just make it up.
It sounds to me like they're regurgitating some of their Princess
Diana material here.
Ian
Rhiann1001
chick...she seems rather self-promoting and insincere from what I've read about
her. Of course I didn't have a good impression of Linda at first either but I
think she proved to be a very "quality" individual. Maybe she did or didn't
start out as a gold-digging groupie but she evolved I think. Heather may evolve
too but something about her really "bugs" right now. I can appreciate her
wanting to help amputees get prosthetics but I have a feeling if she hadn't
lost a leg, she would not be involved in any cause other than "Heather". Yes,I
know... slap me for thinking this way. I'm probably just jealous
lstoll
>
> I can appreciate her wanting to help amputees get
> prosthetics but I have a feeling if she hadn't
> lost a leg, she would not be involved in any cause
> thinking this way. I'm probably just jealous
She was involved in such activities for a few years before that
accident, but you may be right about her overall. I hope not. -laura
Jen
lstoll <la...@lstoll.com> wrote in message news:38F0C9...@lstoll.com...
I sincerely hope for Paul's sake that either the stuff said about her has
been exaggerated, or that she has changed. Deep down though I don't believe
either is true.
Jen
Rhiann1001
grief he's endured the past two years, but I'd hate to see him taken for a
ride.
I saw on Heather's charity's webpage that she's a Nobel Prize nominee? Never
heard that one before....anyone know when and what for?
fabella
In article <20000409144825...@ng-fy1.aol.com>,
<shaking head>
The Nobel Peace Prize? No. Nobel Prize for Literature? No. Ever
since this suggestion was first floated, I have yet to see a
single
piece of evidence to suggest that it's anything but a bit more
puffery.
Rhiann, you used the phrase that first popped into my head when
it became evident that this woman had found her way into Paul's
life: "Take him for a ride." I sincerely hope this doesn't
happen. I've heard him quoted as saying he knows Linda would
want him to
get back into the world and have fun. I have yet to hear him use
the word "love" regarding Mills. Only the tabloids (and now
PEOPLE Mag) have used it. My personal opinion is, she's okay for
"a bit of fun," but she's not worthy of him. If he lets his
vanity get
the best of him, or closes his eyes to the darker side of this
woman's personality, he may be strapped into a helter skelter
with more
sudden drops than he ever could have imagined.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
"Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt. It is when
we are not sure that we are doubly sure." -- Reinhold Niebuhr
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
PrincesPushy
><shaking head>
Serious eye-rolling going on here actually.;-)
>The Nobel Peace Prize? No. Nobel Prize for Literature? No. Ever
>since this suggestion was first floated, I have yet to see a
>single
>piece of evidence to suggest that it's anything but a bit more
>puffery.
>
"Puffery" might be too polite a word. The more that comes out, the more I
wonder if *anything* about this woman is true (if not for the photos, I'd even
wonder about the missing lower portion of her leg!). It seems that most of the
"puffery" put out there comes directly from her web page. Nobel Peace Prize
nomination, successful modeling career.....even the charity itself has come
into question.
>Rhiann, you used the phrase that first popped into my head when
>it became evident that this woman had found her way into Paul's
>life: "Take him for a ride." I sincerely hope this doesn't
>happen. I've heard him quoted as saying he knows Linda would
>want him to
>get back into the world and have fun. I have yet to hear him use
>the word "love" regarding Mills. Only the tabloids (and now
>PEOPLE Mag) have used it. My personal opinion is, she's okay for
>"a bit of fun," but she's not worthy of him.
Amen!
> If he lets his
>vanity get
>the best of him, or closes his eyes to the darker side of this
>woman's personality, he may be strapped into a helter skelter
>with more
>sudden drops than he ever could have >imagined.
>
I agree 200%.
Time to bow out gracefully, Macca.....
Colleen McQ.
Doug Campbell
AFTER she does something worthy of our high minded disdain?
Doug C.
Jamie
> Yes I hope I'm wrong about her too. I'd like Paul to find happiness after the
> grief he's endured the past two years, but I'd hate to see him taken for a
> ride.
>
> I saw on Heather's charity's webpage that she's a Nobel Prize nominee? Never
> heard that one before....anyone know when and what for?
Nobel Peace Prize, which are awarded for charity works (or diplomatic stuff). It
can be given to one person, or an organization; the last one given was to the
group Doctors Without Borders.
--
~Jamie
Jen
PrincesPushy <prince...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20000409170332...@ng-fk1.aol.com...
> >From: fabella waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid
>
> ><shaking head>
>
> Serious eye-rolling going on here actually.;-)
>
> >The Nobel Peace Prize? No. Nobel Prize for Literature? No. Ever
> >since this suggestion was first floated, I have yet to see a
> >single
> >piece of evidence to suggest that it's anything but a bit more
> >puffery.
> >
>
> "Puffery" might be too polite a word. The more that comes out, the more I
> wonder if *anything* about this woman is true (if not for the photos, I'd
even
> wonder about the missing lower portion of her leg!). It seems that most of
the
> "puffery" put out there comes directly from her web page. Nobel Peace
Prize
> nomination, successful modeling career.....even the charity itself has
come
> into question.
>
should give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe her website embellishes
things a bit, but that doesn't mean she's lying.
> >Rhiann, you used the phrase that first popped into my head when
> >it became evident that this woman had found her way into Paul's
> >life: "Take him for a ride." I sincerely hope this doesn't
> >happen. I've heard him quoted as saying he knows Linda would
> >want him to
> >get back into the world and have fun. I have yet to hear him use
> >the word "love" regarding Mills. Only the tabloids (and now
> >PEOPLE Mag) have used it. My personal opinion is, she's okay for
> >"a bit of fun," but she's not worthy of him.
>
> Amen!
>
One would think he's smart enough to know if she *is* taking him for a ride.
When in his lifetime has he allowed himself to be used by anyone?
Jen
afr
legit, esp. in this case, since Oprah is so fond of Paul?
a.
PrincesPushy
>Prize
>> nomination, successful modeling career.....even the charity itself has
>come
>> into question
>Nobody has ever suggested that she lied about these things, so I think we
>should give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe her website embellishes
>things a bit, but that doesn't mean she's lying
Well, I think the husband suggested that the "successful modeling career" was
certainly an embellishment during the time they were together (6 years). Since
the nominating committee for the Nobel Prize do not list nominees, there's no
way to prove if she did or didn't get nominated, so we'll give her that one.
The fact that her charity went unregistered until just recently was cause for
an investigation by the Charity Commission in the UK so that's certainly
suspect, IMO.
>One would think he's smart enough to know if she *is* taking him for a ride.
>When in his lifetime has he allowed himself to be used by anyone?
One would think and hope he's smart enough. But when in his lifetime has he
been this emotionally vulnerable? Possibly when The Beatles broke up or when
John died, but he had Linda then. He doesn't have Linda now. He has Heather.
And Heather is the problem.
And for those that are mortally offended that I express an opinion on the
private life of a celebrity, I apologize. :-p
Colleen McQ.
Kathy
>legit, esp. in this case, since Oprah is so fond of Paul?
I wouldn't consider an appearance on Oprah's show as any type of endorsement of
legitimacy. Whether Heather Mills is on the up and up or not, it's all about
ratings to Oprah.
~K
Nyarlathotep
taff...@aol.comnojunk (Kathy) wrote:
> >Do you think Oprah would have anyone on her program (tomorrow) who
wasn't
> >legit, esp. in this case, since Oprah is so fond of Paul?
Be serious! Oprah has all sorts of phonies on her show.
She just loves, e.g., televangelists. Oprah's show is geared to provide
_comfort_, not knowledge.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Allan
Seems to me there is a bit of the sour grapes factor here. Weren't
people accusing Linda Eastman of also being a gold digger, too, back in
the late sixties? If paul is happy, that is the main thing. In the words
of a great man - Let It Be
Allan
>
> Wouldn't the gracious thing be to give the woman the benefit of the doubt until
> AFTER she does something worthy of our high minded disdain?
>
> Doug C.
>
> PrincesPushy wrote:
>
> >
> > ><shaking head>
> >
> > Serious eye-rolling going on here actually.;-)
> >
> > >The Nobel Peace Prize? No. Nobel Prize for Literature? No. Ever
> > >since this suggestion was first floated, I have yet to see a
> > >single
> > >piece of evidence to suggest that it's anything but a bit more
> > >puffery.
> > >
> >
> > "Puffery" might be too polite a word. The more that comes out, the more I
> > wonder if *anything* about this woman is true (if not for the photos, I'd even
> > wonder about the missing lower portion of her leg!). It seems that most of the
> > nomination, successful modeling career.....even the charity itself has come
> >
> > >Rhiann, you used the phrase that first popped into my head when
> > >it became evident that this woman had found her way into Paul's
> > >life: "Take him for a ride." I sincerely hope this doesn't
> > >happen. I've heard him quoted as saying he knows Linda would
> > >want him to
> > >get back into the world and have fun. I have yet to hear him use
> > >the word "love" regarding Mills. Only the tabloids (and now
> > >PEOPLE Mag) have used it. My personal opinion is, she's okay for
> > >"a bit of fun," but she's not worthy of him.
> >
> > Amen!
> >
> > >vanity get
> > >the best of him, or closes his eyes to the darker side of this
> > >woman's personality, he may be strapped into a helter skelter
> > >with more
> > >sudden drops than he ever could have >imagined.
> > >
> >
> > I agree 200%.
> >
> > Time to bow out gracefully, Macca.....
> >
> > Colleen McQ.
Are you guys for real?
Stephen Carter
wrote:
Is there any *independent* verification of this claim. I
just looked at the Nobel Prize site (www.nobel.se) and it
gives no clues about *nominees*
--
s.d.carterNOSPAM@btinternetdotcom
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
True to Form
>>group Doctors Without Borders.
>
>Is there any *independent* verification of this claim. I
>just looked at the Nobel Prize site (www.nobel.se) and it
>gives no clues about *nominees*
i think it's true...Oprah mentioned it on the show, and i'm sure she's careful
about facts like that.
alley.
Jamie
> On Sun, 09 Apr 2000 18:06:02 -0500, Jamie <ang...@ivnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Rhiann1001 wrote:
> >
> >> Yes I hope I'm wrong about her too. I'd like Paul to find happiness after the
> >> grief he's endured the past two years, but I'd hate to see him taken for a
> >> ride.
> >>
> >> I saw on Heather's charity's webpage that she's a Nobel Prize nominee? Never
> >> heard that one before....anyone know when and what for?
> >
> >Nobel Peace Prize, which are awarded for charity works (or diplomatic stuff). It
> >can be given to one person, or an organization; the last one given was to the
> >group Doctors Without Borders.
>
> Is there any *independent* verification of this claim. I
> just looked at the Nobel Prize site (www.nobel.se) and it
> gives no clues about *nominees*
Their official stance is that they don't name nominees, because doing so would
endanger some nominees in their homelands. However, their offical stance is that if a
nominee wishes, he/she/they can divulge it, and most do. Thus there are articles
about Clinton being nominated, etc.
There are about a hundred nominees, so it would probably take up too much space to
list nominees on their website.
--
~Jamie
fabella
In article <20000410193019...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
dible...@aol.com (True to Form) wrote:
>>was to the
>>>group Doctors Without Borders.
>>
>>Is there any *independent* verification of this claim. I
>>just looked at the Nobel Prize site (www.nobel.se) and it
>>gives no clues about *nominees*
>
>
>
sure she's careful
>about facts like that.
>
>
>
>alley.
>
>
There are literally thousands of nominees every year, and the
Nobel Committee doesn't publish them. There is no verifying this
as a
fact, and Oprah was neither careful nor careless. She just took
someone's word for it.
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <20000410193019...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
> dible...@aol.com (True to Form) wrote:
> >i think it's true...Oprah mentioned it on the show, and i'm
> sure she's careful
> >about facts like that.
>
> There are literally thousands of nominees every year,
Incorrect. The number of nominees depends on the category. The Peace Prize
gets about 100 nominees per year.
--
d.
fabella
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Mills was not nominated for the Peace Prize, d.
Nor were "thousands" of people that year.
Was Mills nominated? I don't know for sure, and neither do you.
*shrug*
--
d.
d.
prince...@aol.comnojunk (PrincesPushy) wrote:
> >There are about a hundred nominees, so it would probably take up too much
> >space to
> >list nominees on their website
>
> No. They don't list nominees on their website because they do not reveal the
> names of nominees. It has nothing to do with space
Nevertheless, they do release figures on the number of nominations per year, and
the amount cited is approximately correct for the year in question.
--
d.
d.
prince...@aol.comnojunk (PrincesPushy) wrote:
> >Nevertheless, they do release figures on the number of nominations per
> >year, and the amount cited is approximately correct for the year in question.
>
> Ok. But it wouldn't matter if the number was 5 or 5,000, they're still not
> going to reveal who they are. Not on their website, and not to Oprah.
> Which, I believe, is basically what Stephen Carter was looking for when he asked
> for a source other than Heather Mills
I understand the issue. However, I guess I'm just naive: do we know whether or
not the Nobel people have ever "outed" a fraud or have indicated that they would
be willing to do so? It seems to me it'd be in their best interests. I guess I
also don't understand this raging, foaming reaction to this woman: I myself have
questions about her and wonder if Paul knows what the hell he's getting involved
with, but at the same time I am trying to stay fair. IMO, there is no more
reason to doubt that she was nominated for a Nobel Prize than there is for a lot
other people who have claimed nomination over the years. Her various
"charities" were all quite politically correct. It's likely it's true, IMO.
--
d.
fabella
Although Oprah did mention her being nominated for a Nobel Prize,
she didn't ask Mills what it was for, or when. [There are
thousands of nominations for Nobel Prizes every year. Any
academic or
journalist may nominate anyone they deem worthy. The thousands
nominated are not made public.]
Anybody remember what year Jim Stacy lost an arm and a leg? It
was well before Mills' accident, I'm sure of that much. But I
thought of him when she told the story of the orthopedic doctor
whom she told she wanted to ski when she was first fitted for her
prosthesis. According to Mills, he said "Oh no, you'll never
ski..." She then went on to wow the audience with her
determination to
ski. Anyone who follows skiing knows that there have been many
one-legged skiiers, some even in amateur competition, and
Mills lost only part of her leg. Jim Stacy actually skied after
his double amputation - without prosthesis.
So what.
So she's a hustler and self-promoter deluxe. Maybe that's what
Paul wants.
Francie
Anita
news:1a9ea9b6...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com...
<<So she's a hustler and self-promoter deluxe. Maybe that's what
Paul wants.>>
Pot, meet kettle. Har!
afr
afr
her was more that she lacked class . . . they portrayed her as a groupie,
ignoring her accomplishments as a rock photographer. heather's getting a
sort of femme fatale whitewash.
a.
Doug Campbell
contributions to the group, because it is unnecessary and downright mean.
Somebody you have never met and who has never done you any harm loses a part of
a leg and learns to ski again after being told it isn't possible and your
reaction (given a paragraph all its own lest we should miss it) is: "so what".
Listen, if you don't find the story unique enough in the annals of skiing
amputee lore you could just let it pass without comment, but you're just dying
to find something to dislike this woman about, aren't you?
God forbid you or anybody else should have an accident like that. She has
every right to be proud of her recovery.
Doug C.
fabella wrote:
> I watched Heather Mills's segment on Oprah this afternoon.
> Although Oprah did mention her being nominated for a Nobel Prize,
> she didn't ask Mills what it was for, or when. [There are
> thousands of nominations for Nobel Prizes every year. Any
> academic or
> journalist may nominate anyone they deem worthy. The thousands
> nominated are not made public.]
>
> Anybody remember what year Jim Stacy lost an arm and a leg? It
> was well before Mills' accident, I'm sure of that much. But I
> thought of him when she told the story of the orthopedic doctor
> whom she told she wanted to ski when she was first fitted for her
> prosthesis. According to Mills, he said "Oh no, you'll never
> ski..." She then went on to wow the audience with her
> determination to
> ski. Anyone who follows skiing knows that there have been many
> one-legged skiiers, some even in amateur competition, and
> Mills lost only part of her leg. Jim Stacy actually skied after
> his double amputation - without prosthesis.
>
> So what.
>
> So she's a hustler and self-promoter deluxe. Maybe that's what
> Paul wants.
>
fabella
nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. A friend of mine went so
far as
to call Sweden and ask the organization directly. They told her
that thousands are nominated. They also told her the list of
nominees is not made public. Therefore, practically anybody who
does charity work may be nominated. Apparently, Mills claims
she did some sort of humanitarian work in the former Yugoslavia.
Got it?
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Not all Nobel Prizes are Peace Prizes. Heather Mills was not
> nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. A friend of mine went so
> far as
> to call Sweden and ask the organization directly. They told her
> that thousands are nominated. They also told her the list of
> nominees is not made public. Therefore, practically anybody who
> does charity work may be nominated. Apparently, Mills claims
> she did some sort of humanitarian work in the former Yugoslavia.
>
> Got it?
No, I don't "got it." If you're not *obsessed* with Paul as you claim you're
not, why are you having 'friends' checking up on his girlfriends? And who
exactly did your friend call at the Nobel organization? It must have been an
intern or someone who didn't speak English very well, because they gave your
"friend" information contrary to the organization's own press releases and
website. The record for most nominees for the Peace Prize in a year is 144.
Got it? ;)
--
d.
fabella
In article <northcut-E40D9D...@news.mindspring.com>,
Sorry if this seems rude, d., but you are an *idiot*.
The Peace Prize never entered into it. Can't you read?
I didn't ask anyone to call Sweden. I received a private email
from someone who did this on her own. She is a long-standing
member of the maccalist and she was fed up with the obsessively
contrarian reactions she got when she posted the information.
Neither she, nor I, really cares if Paul chooses to hook up with
Heather Mills.
The header on this thread is "Truth About Heather Mills."
We were discussing this one item on her resume/press releases.
That's all there is to it.
Francie
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> Sorry if this seems rude, d., but you are an *idiot*.
<kiss sound>
> The Peace Prize never entered into it. Can't you read?
Why didn't it enter into it? The Peace Prize is what Heather claims to have
been nominated for. Why discuss another prize when they aren't relevant?
> I didn't ask anyone to call Sweden. I received a private email
> from someone who did this on her own. She is a long-standing
> member of the maccalist and she was fed up with the obsessively
> contrarian reactions she got when she posted the information.
So your friend called Sweden and inquired how many people *total* have ever been
nominated for *all* Nobel Prizes? Or inquired how many were nominated for the
Physics Prize 1951-1967? Or something random like that?
Sorry if this seems rude, Francie, but your friend is an *idiot*. ;)
--
d.
d.
prince...@aol.comnojunk (PrincesPushy) wrote:
> Considering all the conflicting reports about her over the past 3 weeks, I
> don't find it completely unheard of to actually question the possibility
> she might be embellishing a bit.
I do not deny that. She has a very, uh, "colorful" history. I have no idea if
this is something that will resolve itself or if years from now (!) people will
still be debating it. I choose to take the more positive view that she just
*might* be telling the truth on this one. If it's proven otherwise, I'll
(sadly, but resolvedly) admit I was wrong.
> From where I sit, it happens here all the
> time. Or do we only question the honesty of past girlfriends?
Question anyone or anything you want! Just don't expect to go unchallenged.
That ain't gonna happen.
--
d.
afr
of 60s culture. Consider it official! :-) a.
On 11 Apr 2000, PrincesPushy wrote:
> >However, I guess I'm just naive: do we know whether or
> >not the Nobel people have ever "outed" a fraud or have indicated that they
> >would
> >be willing to do so? It seems to me it'd be in their best interests.
>
> I would assume (and it's only an assumption) that if someone were to actually
> claim to have *won* a Nobel Prize that hadn't done so, then they would speak
> up. But we're just talking about a claim to be nominated here. Considering the
> number of categories and the number of people in a postion to nominate and the
> qualifications being what they are, it's not that big of a deal.However, you
> can always write and ask them.
>
> I
> >guess I
> >also don't understand this raging, foaming reaction to this woman:
>
> Raging? Foaming?? I don't know about anyone else here, but I've had my shots.
>
> I myself
> >have
> >questions about her and wonder if Paul knows what the hell he's getting
> >involved
> >with, but at the same time I am trying to stay fair.
>
> Good. Perhaps someone will nominate *you* for a Nobel Peace Prize. ;-)
>
> IMO, there is no more
> >reason to doubt that she was nominated for a Nobel Prize than there is for a
> >lot
> >other people who have claimed nomination over the years. Her various
> >"charities" were all quite politically correct. It's likely it's true, IMO.
> >
>
> Stephen asked for another source. I answered his question by stating what I
> know of the nominating committee and their rule *not* to reveal the nominees.
>
> Considering all the conflicting reports about her over the past 3 weeks, I
> don't find it completely unheard of to actually question the possibility she
> might be embellishing a bit. From where I sit, it happens here all the time. Or
fabella
In article <northcut-6444F7...@news.mindspring.com>,
"d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
The Peace Prize is what Heather claims to have
>been nominated for.
Wrong, wrong wrong. You really are too thick to be believed.
fabella
vaccine (same as Joni Mitchell) and I permanently lost the use
of my
right shoulder. I was told I would never use my right arm again.
My mother told the doctor to go to hell, and said I didn't have
to
believe him if I didn't want to. I wore a steel brace for nearly
a year, and was called "cripple" and "geek" by my schoolmates.
God
forbid you should ever know what it's like to be deprived of the
use of an arm or a leg.
I don't need reasons to dislike Heather Mills. I don't have any
emotions about her. I observed her telling a story to a mass
audience
this afternoon, and I can tell the difference between someone
who is exploiting her experience from someone who truly
overcomes adversity. I did not bring Heather Mills into this ng
as a topic. But I must say, as others have done; she is about as
plastic as they come.
In the hospital where I was paralyzed from the neck down (it
took a year of physical therapy and hard work to get the ability
to
walk to return) we kids used to have a saying: There are two
kinds of cripples: angels and bastards. This woman is no angel.
I have never had plastic surgery. I have not parlayed my
"courageous" recovery from paralysis into a job. And I have not
accepted engagement rings from a string of progressively richer
men.
And I am not being mean. Just observant.
Francie
lstoll
>
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > The Peace Prize is what Heather claims to have
> > been nominated for.
>
> Wrong, wrong wrong. You really are too thick to
> be believed.
Then what *was* the category for which she was allegedly nominated? Or
at least what are the likely categories?-laura
lstoll
Well, I decided to find out what the categories are (which was
embarrassingly easy to do). They are Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or
Medicine, Literature, and Peace. So was she nominated for the
Physiology/Medicine for pushing for a better-designed prosthesis? -laura
PrincesPushy
>space to
>list nominees on their website
No. They don't list nominees on their website because they do not reveal the
names of nominees. It has nothing to do with space.
PrincesPushy
>and
>the amount cited is approximately correct for the year in question.
Ok. But it wouldn't matter if the number was 5 or 5,000, they're still not
going to reveal who they are. Not on their website, and not to Oprah. Which, I
believe, is basically what Stephen Carter was looking for when he asked for a
source other than Heather Mills.
D 28IF
>Not all Nobel Prizes are Peace Prizes. Heather Mills was not
>nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. A friend of mine went so
>far as
>to call Sweden and ask the organization directly.
No, you're not obsessed with Paul. ;-)
PrincesPushy
d.
<waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <northcut-6444F7...@news.mindspring.com>,
> "d." <nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The Peace Prize is what Heather claims to have
> >been nominated for.
>
> Wrong, wrong wrong.
Can you correct me then, please? Which Nobel prize is she claiming to have won?
Physics? Lit? Chemistry? Medicine? Economics?
Set me right on the path of Heather Millsology, o wisest one.
> You really are too thick to be believed.
Please educate me, Francie! I don't know how I ever got along without you.
--
d.
TC
> also don't understand this raging, foaming reaction to this woman: I myself have
> questions about her and wonder if Paul knows what the hell he's getting involved
> with, but at the same time I am trying to stay fair.
Same here. But not only do I, and many others (i.e., "raging, foaming reactions"),
question her character as a person, as you seem to, but I also have questions about
what motivated her charitable efforts (see below), which would make her a rather
unorthodox Nobel nominee.
> IMO, there is no more
> reason to doubt that she was nominated for a Nobel Prize than there is for a lot
> other people who have claimed nomination over the years. Her various
> "charities" were all quite politically correct. It's likely it's true, IMO.
I would hope criteria for nomination transcends political correctness. Anyway, in my
mind her charitable acts were simply a result of her first hand knowledge of what it's
like to be in that situation, and not that she saw an injustice and tried to correct
it because her conscience drove her to it. Bob Geldof wasn't starving when he started
all that Live Aid/Band Aid stuff, so in my mind he deserved the Nobel more. And I
don't believe he deserved it.
Maybe someone can help me out. What exactly is the criteria for nomination?
d.
> > IMO, there is no more
> > reason to doubt that she was nominated for a Nobel Prize than there is
> > for a lot
> > other people who have claimed nomination over the years. Her various
> > "charities" were all quite politically correct. It's likely it's true,
> > IMO.
>
> I would hope criteria for nomination transcends political correctness.
> Anyway, in my mind her charitable acts were simply a result of her first hand knowledge
> of what it's like to be in that situation, and not that she saw an injustice and tried
> to correct it because her conscience drove her to it. Bob Geldof wasn't starving when
> he started all that Live Aid/Band Aid stuff, so in my mind he deserved the Nobel more.
> And I don't believe he deserved it.
>
> Maybe someone can help me out. What exactly is the criteria for
> nomination?
I don't think there *is* a set criteria. There are people who are granted the
right to nominate - and there *are* thousands of those people, and I think
Francie's getting nominators confused with nominees - and they can nominate
whoever they wish for whatever reason they wish. It is up to the awards
committee to judge worthiness. They *usually* do a good job. You'll note they
didn give an award to Heather Mills. ;)
--
d.
Jen
afr <a...@efn.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSU.4.05.100041...@garcia.efn.org...
> They never accused Linda of being a gold digger . . . the negative spin on
> her was more that she lacked class . . . they portrayed her as a groupie,
> ignoring her accomplishments as a rock photographer. heather's getting a
> sort of femme fatale whitewash.
>
> a.
>
>
former lovers or her ex-husband? It seems to me that a lot of the
"negative" stuff about Ms. Mills has come from former lovers(and friends of
former lovers). Isn't it safe to say that the British press knows more
about Ms. Mills(being that she's British and somewhat of a celebrity) than
they did about Linda? So maybe their opinions of her are not so far off
base? I don't know. I can't imagine the press deliberately wanting to
sabotage this relationship though. The Mirror(which ran the story on her
wanting to end the relationship and the interview with her
ex-husband)gleefully claimed that they brought Paul and Heather together
when the story first broke. Hello put her on their cover listing the
reasons why she's the perfect "second soulmate" for Paul. It doesn't seem
to me that the press has been extremely hard on her.
Jen
TC
Seems rather silly. I've always thought that it should be a person who's changed humanity,
not someone who's helped some (even allot) of people who were in need, but who gives
knowledge or some kind of lasting contribution to the world which will significantly improve
the standard of life for the world long after they're gone, which would absolutely exclude
Heather Mills. She would have to be up there with Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King, etc.
And that's a joke. All I know of her is what I've read here and on her website (oh, and on
Oprah), and I exclude a pretender like her. She may very well be a wonderful person, despite
what many say, but I've yet to see much to justify a Nobel nomination. I'm just saying that
my exclusion of her has nothing to do with her as a person. Her actions don't warrant so
much as a nomination. I loved Princess Diana, but, as in Heather Mills, come on...
> You'll note they didn give an award to Heather Mills. ;)
Agreed. Maybe the reason they don't announce nominees is because they don't want to tarnish
their image if people knew who they'd considered, even passively. Case in point. :)
d.
> > I don't think there *is* a set criteria.
>
> Seems rather silly. I've always thought that it should be a person who's
> changed humanity, not someone who's helped some (even allot) of people who were in need, but
> who gives knowledge or some kind of lasting contribution to the world which will
> significantly improve the standard of life for the world long after they're gone,
No doubt that's what the people who nominate are *expected* to do. I just don't
know if they have an actual set of rules they have to go by when nominating, or
if they can make that judgement call themselves and let the judges sort it out.
It's something you should take up with the Nobel Foundation if it's bothering
you. I'm sure they'd take the time to respond to a query.
--
d.
Deirdre
My understanding was that Mills had been nominated for her work with
children who had suffered disfiguring accidents (such as her own).
Dee
Stephen Carter
(Stephen Carter) wrote:
>Is there any *independent* verification of this claim. I
>just looked at the Nobel Prize site (www.nobel.se) and it
>gives no clues about *nominees*
I am reliably informed by a friend who is 'close' to these
things - I asked if there was a way to check on a claim of
nomination, and was told that the actual nominations are
kept secret for 50 years, but nominating is quite easy as
forms seem to be sent out quite freely.
Which of course now begs the questions...
1 How can Ms Mills claim be verified, and
2 Let's do a write in for saki for the Literature prize!
--
s.d.carterNOSPAM@btinternetdotcom
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Jamie
> > I don't think there *is* a set criteria.
>
> Seems rather silly. I've always thought that it should be a person who's changed humanity,
> not someone who's helped some (even allot) of people who were in need, but who gives
> knowledge or some kind of lasting contribution to the world which will significantly improve
> the standard of life for the world long after they're gone, which would absolutely exclude
> Heather Mills.
Isn't "helping a lot of people in need" *exactly* what contributing a lasting effect on the world
is? I'm honestly befuddled as to what you're saying: how is someone supposed to change humanity
without helping people? And indeed, how are you able to exclude *anybody*, much less Mills, by
that criteria? How are you fit to judge whether anybody, be it a famous person or Joe Schmoe down
the street, will have a lasting effect on the world after they've gone? I'm especially curious as
to how you can be "absolutely" certain when they're not even gone yet.
> She would have to be up there with Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King, etc.
For every famous person like Mother Teresa who receives it, there are a hundred recipients who
are not household names. If I rattled off a list of winners, I would bet that you wouldn't know
what the majority of them did. Do you know who Albert John Lutuli, Elihu Root, Jospeh Rotblat,
Aung San Suu Kyai, Lech Walesa, or Alva Myrdal are, and why do you think they did or did not
deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
> And that's a joke. All I know of her is what I've read here and on her website (oh, and on
> Oprah), and I exclude a pretender like her.
If all you know about her is what you saw on Oprah and a newsgroup, then how do you feel fit to
judge her a "pretender"?
> She may very well be a wonderful person, despite
> what many say, but I've yet to see much to justify a Nobel nomination.
Since you're not on the nominating committee, then you don't have to worry about it, now do you?
> I'm just saying that
> my exclusion of her has nothing to do with her as a person. Her actions don't warrant so
> much as a nomination.
Again, how do you know, if you are admittedly ignorant of her work? I also think you're judging
the merits of the Prize as what *you* think they should be, not what they *are*. You apparently
think that the Prize should be awarded to those who make a long lasting effect on humanity after
they're gone. Well, that raises the question: how is that measurable? Are we supposed to wait
until long after each person is dead to see whether their work has an effect on humanity and then
award them the Prize? And exactly how do we measure the effect of one person's life on humanity?
You claim that those who recieve nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize should be on par with MLK
and Mother Teresa. What does that mean? MLK was a brilliant, yet flawed man that led a social
movement. Mother Teresa was a flawed yet famous religious figure who worked for poverty in a
particular area. Shall the winners of the Prize thus only be people who either lead a social
movement or work with poverty?
FYI, the Nobel Prize is meant to award those who advance the cause of peace in the world. As d.
said, it is not a surprise that Ms. Mills would be nominated, considering Jody Williams, a
regular woman and not a household name, won the Peace Prize in 1997 for her campaign against
landmines. The reason why the Prize comes with a monetary reward is so those "unknown" names who
receive it can carry on their work. If you would like to actually like to judge the work Heather
Mills does on behalf of the disabled, I suggest you research and find out. You might learn
something.
--
~Jamie
Nurktwn
Yeah!
Stephen Carter
<nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <20000410212849...@ng-bh1.aol.com>,
>I understand the issue. However, I guess I'm just naive: do we know whether or
>not the Nobel people have ever "outed" a fraud or have indicated that they would
>be willing to do so? It seems to me it'd be in their best interests. I guess I
>also don't understand this raging, foaming reaction to this woman: I myself have
>questions about her and wonder if Paul knows what the hell he's getting involved
>with, but at the same time I am trying to stay fair. IMO, there is no more
>reason to doubt that she was nominated for a Nobel Prize than there is for a lot
>other people who have claimed nomination over the years. Her various
>"charities" were all quite politically correct. It's likely it's true, IMO.
The Nobel Committee may not always know about people who
claim to have been nominated. I have asked my contact to
pass back to the Committee the fact that this is said on Ms
Mills' web site. If it is true, then that's the end of it.
As for her (alleged) Charity work (alleged referring to the
Charity, not the work), what bemuses me (in the UK) is that
if she were *so* successful, and *so* good at it (etc), how
come I had never ever ever heard of her before she started
to be linked with Paul. Odd that.
Stephen Carter
<nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <20000410234803...@ng-bj1.aol.com>,
>prince...@aol.comnojunk (PrincesPushy) wrote:
>
>> Considering all the conflicting reports about her over the past 3 weeks, I
>> don't find it completely unheard of to actually question the possibility
>> she might be embellishing a bit.
>
>I do not deny that. She has a very, uh, "colorful" history.
I more or less ignored this entire issue until I read about
the "unfortunate" timing of the application for Charitable
status.
Having been involved in such things (in the UK) I am aware
how jealously the Charity Commissioners view the special
privileges that being a Charity allows. Abuse of that
attracts my attention. It's not a Beatle thing, it's not a
Heather thing, and it is not a Paul thing - it's a me thing!
:-)
PrincesPushy
>Charity, not the work), what bemuses me (in the UK) is that
>if she were *so* successful, and *so* good at it (etc), how
>come I had never ever ever heard of her before she started
>to be linked with Paul. Odd that.
That is odd. Her "friends" would have you believe she's second to only
Princess Diana in the hearts and minds of her countrymen. Any moment now I
expect to read how Paul latched on to her to enhance his own career.
d.
wrote:
> The Nobel Committee may not always know about people who
> claim to have been nominated. I have asked my contact to
> pass back to the Committee the fact that this is said on Ms
> Mills' web site. If it is true, then that's the end of it.
Thanks, Stephen - do you think there is any chance you will hear anything back
about this?
--
d.
d.
nur...@aol.comnojunk (Nurktwn) wrote:
> >2 Let's do a write in for saki for the Literature prize!
>
> Yeah!
>
>
Thirded!
--
d.
Jen
Stephen Carter <sXdXc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8d08bn$q7r$2...@uranium.btinternet.com...
> claim to have been nominated. I have asked my contact to
> pass back to the Committee the fact that this is said on Ms
> Mills' web site. If it is true, then that's the end of it.
>
> Charity, not the work), what bemuses me (in the UK) is that
> if she were *so* successful, and *so* good at it (etc), how
> come I had never ever ever heard of her before she started
> to be linked with Paul. Odd that.
>
> s.d.carterNOSPAM@btinternetdotcom
> Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
Wasn't she a Page 3 girl?
Jen
Jamie
> As for her (alleged) Charity work (alleged referring to the
> Charity, not the work), what bemuses me (in the UK) is that
> if she were *so* successful, and *so* good at it (etc), how
> come I had never ever ever heard of her before she started
> to be linked with Paul. Odd that.
You're not a news follower? She was profiled in People magazine before the Paul link,
and if you do a search on some of the Brit newspaper sites you can find articles about
her pre-Paul.
--
~Jamie
Danny
5FE9E4.195...@news.mindspring.com>, "d."
<nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <2354a5b5...@usw-ex0104-033.remarq.com>,
fabella
><waronsex...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <20000410193019...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
>> dible...@aol.com (True to Form) wrote:
>
>> >i think it's true...Oprah mentioned it on the show, and i'm
>> sure she's careful
>> >about facts like that.
>
>>
>> There are literally thousands of nominees every year,
>
>Incorrect. The number of nominees depends on the category.
The Peace Prize
>gets about 100 nominees per year.
>
>--
>d.
>
>
I'm getting a bit bored about HM, know what I mean.
Danny
Jamie
> In article <8d08bn$q7r$2...@uranium.btinternet.com>, sXdXc...@btinternetX.com
> wrote:
>
> > The Nobel Committee may not always know about people who
> > claim to have been nominated. I have asked my contact to
> > pass back to the Committee the fact that this is said on Ms
> > Mills' web site. If it is true, then that's the end of it.
>
> Thanks, Stephen - do you think there is any chance you will hear anything back
> about this?
As has been repeated, they don't officially release the names of nominees.
However, the committee's official stance is that it does not care if nominees
choose to release their names themselves. If someone claims to have been nominated
and is not, they are corrected. Considering that Mills' nomination has been
mentioned in articles going back years, you can be assured it happened.
--
~Jamie
d.
<jsn...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Stephen Carter <sXdXc...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > As for her (alleged) Charity work (alleged referring to the
> > Charity, not the work), what bemuses me (in the UK) is that
> > if she were *so* successful, and *so* good at it (etc), how
> > come I had never ever ever heard of her before she started
> > to be linked with Paul. Odd that.
> >
> > --
> > s.d.carterNOSPAM@btinternetdotcom
> > Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
>
> Wasn't she a Page 3 girl?
Now, Jen, are you suggesting that Stephen keeps track of Page 3 girls? ;-)
--
d.
fabella
In article <20000411185952...@ng-cm1.aol.com>,
prince...@aol.comnojunk (PrincesPushy) wrote:
>>As for her (alleged) Charity work (alleged referring to the
>>Charity, not the work), what bemuses me (in the UK) is that
>>if she were *so* successful, and *so* good at it (etc), how
>>come I had never ever ever heard of her before she started
>>to be linked with Paul. Odd that.
>
to only
>Princess Diana in the hearts and minds of her countrymen. Any
moment now I
>expect to read how Paul latched on to her to enhance his own
career.
>
>
>
>
If one's primary source of world news is limited to People Mag
or what Danny calls the Maily Dail sorts of print publications,
one
would have missed this grand experience of getting to know
Heather Mills.
Seems that one point not yet brought forward is that it takes
just *one* person to nominate for a Nobel. Perhaps this explains
the
thousands of nomination received each year.
How to explain the methods and means by which HM went from
sleeping under bridges to the vaunted position of Oprahguest...
that's a bit more complicated.
That she models herself (with surgical assistance) after the
late Diana, Princess of Wales, embraces (an excellent lateral
move)
amputees who also just happen to be victims of landmine
explosions may be one tiny hint. That she remodeled her breasts
and
nose, had fat sucked out of various parts of her body, is not
interesting in itself, except that these things are done to
attract certain
kinds of men, at a certain level. That her hair more resembles a
cross between Jennifer Aniston (Oo, Brad Pitt's not married yet!)
and Lady Linda is certainly no accident... observe the many
hairstyles of HM.
Finally, since we all have such a great interest in HM's skills
at attracting the press, let us not forget the brave, courageous
nude
photo taken by Terry O'Neill (Faye Dunaway's ex, no less).
I'd say that pretty soon, the entire Western hemisphere will be
made aware of Heather Mills, whether we like it or not.
Her moment has come.
Has she got the Right Stuff?
Wait and see.
Francie
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
"Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith, but in doubt. It is when
we are not sure that we are doubly sure." -- Reinhold Niebuhr
fabella
Beatlemaniac fashion.
Here's the clue: In the Anthology, remember the part where John
half-sings: "Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be, 'cos now
I'm an amputee..."?
*Paul's just tryin' to get back to John!!!*
fabellafreak
;-)
fabella
francie
afr
> > Charity, not the work), what bemuses me (in the UK) is that
> > if she were *so* successful, and *so* good at it (etc), how
> > come I had never ever ever heard of her before she started
> > to be linked with Paul. Odd that.
>
> Wasn't she a Page 3 girl?
> Jen
Jen, I've seen English people say that about Heather. I don't know what
that means, but guessing it means underwear model. Am I close?
ava
afr
You know, as I think about it, probably the least "credible" attachment to
Heather is that the writing on her website doesn't seem professional.
Macca's website is a class act. Maybe he'll lend her his architects. ;)
a.
Jamie
Small clarification: "Considering that Mills' nomination has been mentioned in
articles going back years, you can be assured it (the nomination) happened."
--
~Jamie
afr
> reasons why she's the perfect "second soulmate" for Paul. It doesn't seem
> to me that the press has been extremely hard on her.
> Jen
That's true.
ava
afr
How did Oprah seem to respond to her? How did Oprah frame who she was? Did
she talk about the Paul connection? I am dying to find out about this
interview. Please (anyone else too who saw it), share the details.
Thanks!
ava
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, fabella wrote:
> Doug, you don't know me. I got polio the year of the Salk
> vaccine (same as Joni Mitchell) and I permanently lost the use
> of my
> right shoulder. I was told I would never use my right arm again.
> My mother told the doctor to go to hell, and said I didn't have
> to
> believe him if I didn't want to. I wore a steel brace for nearly
> a year, and was called "cripple" and "geek" by my schoolmates.
> God
> forbid you should ever know what it's like to be deprived of the
> use of an arm or a leg.
>
> I don't need reasons to dislike Heather Mills. I don't have any
> emotions about her. I observed her telling a story to a mass
> audience
> this afternoon, and I can tell the difference between someone
> who is exploiting her experience from someone who truly
> overcomes adversity. I did not bring Heather Mills into this ng
> as a topic. But I must say, as others have done; she is about as
> plastic as they come.
>
> In the hospital where I was paralyzed from the neck down (it
> took a year of physical therapy and hard work to get the ability
> to
> walk to return) we kids used to have a saying: There are two
> kinds of cripples: angels and bastards. This woman is no angel.
>
> I have never had plastic surgery. I have not parlayed my
> "courageous" recovery from paralysis into a job. And I have not
> accepted engagement rings from a string of progressively richer
> men.
>
> And I am not being mean. Just observant.
>
> Francie
huzzlewhat
<nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Fourthed!
(If a fourth is needed. Tennis, anyone?)
TC
> the merits of the Prize as what *you* think they should be, not what they *are*. You apparently
> think that the Prize should be awarded to those who make a long lasting effect on humanity after
> they're gone. Well, that raises the question: how is that measurable? Are we supposed to wait
> until long after each person is dead to see whether their work has an effect on humanity and then
> award them the Prize? And exactly how do we measure the effect of one person's life on humanity?
>
> You claim that those who recieve nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize should be on par with MLK
> and Mother Teresa. What does that mean? MLK was a brilliant, yet flawed man that led a social
> movement. Mother Teresa was a flawed yet famous religious figure who worked for poverty in a
> particular area. Shall the winners of the Prize thus only be people who either lead a social
> movement or work with poverty?
>
> FYI, the Nobel Prize is meant to award those who advance the cause of peace in the world. As d.
> said, it is not a surprise that Ms. Mills would be nominated, considering Jody Williams, a
> regular woman and not a household name, won the Peace Prize in 1997 for her campaign against
> landmines. The reason why the Prize comes with a monetary reward is so those "unknown" names who
> receive it can carry on their work. If you would like to actually like to judge the work Heather
> Mills does on behalf of the disabled, I suggest you research and find out. You might learn
> something.
Sheesh. You're right and I'm wrong. OK? Now go lie down.
PrincesPushy
>If someone claims to have been nominated
>> and is not, they are corrected. Considering that Mills' nomination has been
>> mentioned in articles going back years, you can be assured it happened.
>
And you are whom to give out such assurances? Do you have a source where we
can find such a declaration? Are you a member of the nominating committee?
Ehtue
>> Wasn't she a Page 3 girl?
>> Jen
>
>Jen, I've seen English people say that about Heather. I don't know what
>that means, but guessing it means underwear model. Am I close?
I believe a Page 3 girl is one (usually unknown to the extreme) who poses
topless for a picture on page 3 of the tabloids.
-Ehtue
Doug Campbell
The guy is almost 60, his wife died, now he's got a girlfriend.
"So what."
You, the same people who go on and on and on about J&Y's marriage being none of
our business - even though they willingly promoted it as a performance piece -
seem to have nothing better to do than to poke around in this couple's trash bin
looking for something you can hold up for scorn.
Grow the fuck up. Then do some good work.
Doug C
Maurizio Codogno
Stephen Carter <sXdXc...@btinternetX.com> wrote:
: I am reliably informed by a friend who is 'close' to these
: things - I asked if there was a way to check on a claim of
: nomination, and was told that the actual nominations are
: kept secret for 50 years, but nominating is quite easy as
: forms seem to be sent out quite freely.
At least for Peace Nobel I know that it's quite easy to make a nomination.
: 2 Let's do a write in for saki for the Literature prize!
Cannot agree more.
ciao, .mau.
TC
> to me that the press has been extremely hard on her.
> Jen
Just many on RMB. Surprise!
fabella
In article <38F4775F...@bellsouth.net>, TC
Just reporting: HM just signed to do a sitcom, her first job as
an actress.
Seems to jaded old me she's been acting most of her life.
I seem to remember another actress in Paul McCartney's life
whose career came first...
JazzyBeatnik
I also remember reading a quote (by someone who knew Heather), saying that Paul
is "lucky to have any of her time." For some reason, I find it difficult to
believe that he's just sitting at home knitting, or the like. :)
~Jazzy
Stephen Carter
<nort...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>In article <8d08bn$q7r$2...@uranium.btinternet.com>, sXdXc...@btinternetX.com
>wrote:
>
>> The Nobel Committee may not always know about people who
>> claim to have been nominated. I have asked my contact to
>> pass back to the Committee the fact that this is said on Ms
>> Mills' web site. If it is true, then that's the end of it.
>
>Thanks, Stephen - do you think there is any chance you will hear anything back
>about this?
If I do I'll post it on the newsgroup. My contact is, ahem,
quite good! :-)
Stephen Carter
>
>
>
>> > Charity, not the work), what bemuses me (in the UK) is that
>> > if she were *so* successful, and *so* good at it (etc), how
>> > come I had never ever ever heard of her before she started
>> > to be linked with Paul. Odd that.
>>
>> Wasn't she a Page 3 girl?
>> Jen
>
>Jen, I've seen English people say that about Heather. I don't know what
>that means, but guessing it means underwear model. Am I close?
Page 3 is a reference to the habit that the lower end of the
tabloid press have of putting topless models as a big photo
on page 3.
Again. I'd never heard of her before the recent Paul
associated news, and (to counter another person) I do lkeep
track of the news over here. Perhaps I fail by not reading
the low end tabloids?
Stephen Carter
<do...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>Christ, this has to be the cattiest thread I've seen on this group.
>The guy is almost 60, his wife died, now he's got a girlfriend.
>
>"So what."
If you'd read my posting(S) you'll have seen that broadly I
agree with you - but immediately there's an allegation (by
all accounts well founded) that she falsely (and
fraudulently) claimed that she was running a charity) then I
got interested.....
No more, no less.
Stephen Carter
>afr a...@efn.org wrote:
>
>>> Wasn't she a Page 3 girl?
>>> Jen
>>
>>Jen, I've seen English people say that about Heather. I don't know what
>>that means, but guessing it means underwear model. Am I close?
>
>I believe a Page 3 girl is one (usually unknown to the extreme) who poses
>topless for a picture on page 3 of the tabloids.
Oddy, there are a few (Sam Fox and Denise Outen) who go on
to other careers.
The models do see it as a 'big break' in their careers.
The current UK Minister fo Overseas Development (Clare
Short) who is in the Cabinet and thus one of the top 20
ministers in the govt, tried a few years ago to outlaw 'Page
3'. She failed. The recordings of the debate in the House
of Commons make very sad listening indeed.
Danny
tits in it, though there is now one with many more called "The Sport". "The
Sun" started it all off. It's sister paper which comes out on a Sunday is
called "The News of the World".. as in "She's a kind of a girl that makes
the News of the world.. yes you could say she was attractively built". The
NOTW also has many tits in it too, though I don't think the have an official
Page Three Girl like the Sun does..(they might have some tits on page five
or summit), incidentally the Sun is bad news in Liverpool where it doesn't
sell many copies.. due to the paper printing pictures of Scousers being
crushed to death at a footy match in the late eighties. Obviously folk were
a bit sensitive to seeing their mates being shown literally being killed
quite graphically on the front pages of the newstand.. The Sun is still a
dirty word in the Pool.
Danny
Jamie
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2000 01:53:32 -0400, Doug Campbell
> <do...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Christ, this has to be the cattiest thread I've seen on this group.
> >The guy is almost 60, his wife died, now he's got a girlfriend.
> >
> >"So what."
>
> If you'd read my posting(S) you'll have seen that broadly I
> agree with you - but immediately there's an allegation (by
> all accounts well founded) that she falsely (and
> fraudulently) claimed that she was running a charity) then I
> got interested.....
No one claimed she was fraudently running a charity. Just that it was
unregistered, and it turned out that it had actually applied for
registration months ago but just hadn't gone through yet. And indeed,
the registration records bear that out (you can sleep at night knowing
it's now a registered charity.) That's not at all uncommon as charities
usually have to wait awhile after first filing papers to become
registered (due to the evaluation period).
If you're so concerned with her charity work, maybe you should look up
coverage on her, like about her receiving a Gold Award from John Major,
or the Oustanding Human Achievement Award from the London Times, and
being named one of the "People of the Year" by the Royal Association for
Disability and Rehabilition, etc. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to do
research, Stephen; getting the above information took me about 15
minutes by searching British news archives.
--
~Jamie
Jamie
Quite frankly, I could care less what a troll like you thinks. You've already
shown that if the Nobel committee gave her the freakin' prize tomorrow and you
wouldn't believe it.
--
~Jamie
fabella
In article <38F50DB1...@ivnet.com>, Jamie
There's about as much chance of Mills getting a Nobel Prize as
there is of you getting some taste, Jamie.
Princess Pushy has never behaved like a troll, and doesn't
deserve to be called one - especially by you.
Jamie
> >>Quite frankly, I could care less what a troll like you thinks.
> >You've already
> >>shown that if the Nobel committee gave her the freakin' prize
> >tomorrow and you
> >>wouldn't believe it.
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>~Jamie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >There's about as much chance of Mills getting a Nobel Prize as
> >there is of you getting some taste, Jamie.
> >
> >Princess Pushy has never behaved like a troll, and doesn't
> >deserve to be called one - especially by you.
> >
> >Francie
>
> Thanks, Francie. But it would appear that if someone questions Jamie's claims,
> they're considered a "troll".
No, I actually disagree with several people here and do not call them trolls.
That's more your pal Francie's style, who breezed into the ng and within her first
week was calling regulars, who've been here for years, "trolls." My judgement of
you being a troll has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, but rather the
fact that, according to Deja, your screenname didn't exist before two weeks ago,
and every one of your 16 posts to this ng and 3 posts to another newsgroup are all
on the topic of Heather Mills and how you don't like her. What a coincidence! No
wait, there is one post where you talked about how you and Francie are pals and she
was so nice to you in private email, yada yada yada. Maybe if you stay here for any
length of time and start writing posts that don't all deal with the same subject,
you'll be able to show people that you can be an interesting contributor. But I'm
not holding my breath.
> If someone questions your claims,
> they're.......well, no point in going down that road. I think we can see what's
> going on.
>
> Wave that banner high, Jamie. Maybe they'll invite you to the wedding.
Keep sucking up to Francie, and maybe she'll give you a free copy of her book. Keep
it nice, it's a collector item!
--
~Jamie
Jamie
> >No one claimed she was fraudently running a charity. Just that it was
> >unregistered, and it turned out that it had actually applied for
> >registration months ago but just hadn't gone through yet. And indeed,
> >the registration records bear that out (you can sleep at night knowing
> >it's now a registered charity.) That's not at all uncommon as charities
> >usually have to wait awhile after first filing papers to become
> >registered (due to the evaluation period).
> >
>
> "..to wait awhile..."? A while?? Was there or wasn't there a "charity" that
> Paul donated to in October 1999 ~ or was his money used to start it? Her
> webpage would have you believe it started in October 1993; in which case nearly
> seven years seems to be a rather lengthy "evaluation period".
The woman in charge of the charity said in one article that Paul's donation was the
largest it ever received. From the reports I read, the charity largely collects and
transfers prosthetic limbs to the underpriviledged, and did not really deal in
monetary donations before Paul's contribution. One of the requirements to be a
registered charity is that the yearly donations must exceed a certain monetary sun.
If it's below that amount, the charity need not register. Mills' charity filed a
declaration shortly after Paul's donation, and it's registration came through a few
months later. The Garland Appeal followed a similar path; despite articles about
it's creation coming last year, it's papers were actually filed this February with
its registration coming a few months later. No doubt that was done because the CD's
were released this year.
--
~Jamie
fabella
list of all the subjects you'd like me to address. Just so I get
it right.
Jamie: Here's a start: anything involving the actual Beatles.
Gee, kids, what have we learned from this exchange?
Well, it looks like Jamie is complaining about PP's not
addressing anything involving the actual Beatles, in a thread
where her
total contribution has been to enlighten everyone on the
legitimacy of Heather Mills' collection of 'contributions' and
her eligibility
for Nobel prizes. There's a contradiction at work here.
Of course, Jamie also excoriates PP (and says she knows nothing
about the exemplary subject matter of these threads) for failing
to have posted for more than two weeks, then smashes the
killshot home by suggesting she go back to lurking. Jamie doesn't
seem to understand that there are people who may lurk, and do
nothing *but* read. Length of time posting is not the barometer
for a poster's knowledge of what goes on here. Oops.
Being merely a junior member of the Clown Brigade, Jamie is made
to spout grade school level retorts at anyone who enjoys
convivial relations with yours truly -- her remarks about my
book are clearly her attempt to rise in the ranks through extra
credit.
Overall, a mediocre effort. This may explain her admiring
reference to Marek's skills. Just in case she doesn't make the
grade with
the senior Clownettes, there's a fallback position in the HAT
fanclub.
Wait, I think that's all male.
Oh well.
Francie
;-)
PrincesPushy
>unregistered, and it turned out that it had actually applied for
>registration months ago but just hadn't gone through yet. And indeed,
>the registration records bear that out (you can sleep at night knowing
>it's now a registered charity.) That's not at all uncommon as charities
>usually have to wait awhile after first filing papers to become
>registered (due to the evaluation period).
>
"..to wait awhile..."? A while?? Was there or wasn't there a "charity" that
Paul donated to in October 1999 ~ or was his money used to start it? Her
webpage would have you believe it started in October 1993; in which case nearly
seven years seems to be a rather lengthy "evaluation period".
Colleen
PrincesPushy
>You've already
>>shown that if the Nobel committee gave her the freakin' prize
>tomorrow and you
>>wouldn't believe it.
>>
>>
>>--
>>~Jamie
>>
>>
>>
>
>There's about as much chance of Mills getting a Nobel Prize as
>there is of you getting some taste, Jamie.
>
>Princess Pushy has never behaved like a troll, and doesn't
>deserve to be called one - especially by you.
>
>Francie
Thanks, Francie. But it would appear that if someone questions Jamie's claims,
they're considered a "troll". If someone questions your claims,
they're.......well, no point in going down that road. I think we can see what's
going on.
Wave that banner high, Jamie. Maybe they'll invite you to the wedding.
Colleen
PrincesPushy
>That's more your pal Francie's style, who breezed into the ng and within her
>first
>week was calling regulars, who've been here for years, "trolls." My judgement
>of
>you being a troll has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, but rather
>the
>fact that, according to Deja, your screenname didn't exist before two weeks
>ago,
>and every one of your 16 posts to this ng and 3 posts to another newsgroup
>are all
>on the topic of Heather Mills and how you don't like her. What a coincidence!
LOL. You really don't have much of a life, do you?
>No
>wait, there is one post where you talked about how you and Francie are pals
>and she
>was so nice to you in private email, yada yada yada.
Ahhh, that's the real problem, isn't it? I said I enjoyed an e-mail exchange
with Francie. I'm quite sure I never said Francie and I are "pals". I'll leave
it to you to make hysterical assumptions on people you don't know.
Maybe if you stay here
>for any
>length of time and start writing posts that don't all deal with the same
>subject,
>you'll be able to show people that you can be an interesting contributor.
Oooooh, do you think? Maybe you could forward me a list of all the subjects
you'd like me to address. Just so I get it right.
>But I'm not holding my breath.
You appear to have already held it too long.
>
>> If someone questions your claims,
>> they're.......well, no point in going down that road. I think we can see
>what's
>> going on.
>>
>> Wave that banner high, Jamie. Maybe they'll invite you to the wedding.
>Keep sucking up to Francie, and maybe she'll give you a free copy of her
>book. Keep it nice, it's a collector item!
Nah, I've already read her book, but thanks for the thought anyway. Now why
don't you go send your allowance to Heather Mills and then go get ready for
bed.....
Colleen
Jamie
> >No, I actually disagree with several people here and do not call them trolls.
> >That's more your pal Francie's style, who breezed into the ng and within her
> >first
> >week was calling regulars, who've been here for years, "trolls." My judgement
> >of
> >you being a troll has nothing to do with you disagreeing with me, but rather
> >the
> >fact that, according to Deja, your screenname didn't exist before two weeks
> >ago,
> >and every one of your 16 posts to this ng and 3 posts to another newsgroup
> >are all
> >on the topic of Heather Mills and how you don't like her. What a coincidence!
>
> LOL. You really don't have much of a life, do you?
Actually, looking up your identity took about 5 minutes; Deja is great that way.
Very convenient for catching trolls.
> >No
> >wait, there is one post where you talked about how you and Francie are pals
> >and she
> >was so nice to you in private email, yada yada yada.
>
> Ahhh, that's the real problem, isn't it? I said I enjoyed an e-mail exchange
> with Francie. I'm quite sure I never said Francie and I are "pals". I'll leave
> it to you to make hysterical assumptions on people you don't know.
I could frankly care less whether you and Francie are "pals" or not. It only
reflects on your own intellect. I do however, care that, without having ever posted
before, you decide that in your first post you will urge other posters in rmb to
"Give it a rest! It's been months now!" while singing Francie's praises. It's
awfully amazing someone with no knowledge or involvement of the situation feels fit
to comment on it, doesn't it? In that post, you also announced you were going back
into lurkdom. When will that be, eh? Your pal Francie's habits have apparently
rubbed off on you; say one thing and do another. Gee, what a coincidence! Not only
do you two share the same habits, an obsessive jealousy of Ms. Mills, but you
*also* share strikingly similar writing styles. Hmm, will wonders ever cease? Next
you'll be telling us you share a mutual friend named Zoe!
> Maybe if you stay here
> >for any
> >length of time and start writing posts that don't all deal with the same
> >subject,
> >you'll be able to show people that you can be an interesting contributor.
>
> Oooooh, do you think? Maybe you could forward me a list of all the subjects
> you'd like me to address. Just so I get it right.
Here's a start: anything involving the actual Beatles.
> >But I'm not holding my breath.
>
> You appear to have already held it too long.
Careful, you might hurt your brain if you think too hard on those "witty
comebacks".
> >
> >> If someone questions your claims,
> >> they're.......well, no point in going down that road. I think we can see
> >what's
> >> going on.
> >>
> >> Wave that banner high, Jamie. Maybe they'll invite you to the wedding.
>
> >Keep sucking up to Francie, and maybe she'll give you a free copy of her
> >book. Keep it nice, it's a collector item!
>
> Nah, I've already read her book, but thanks for the thought anyway.
Aw, too bad! Hope you didn't pay for it! Then maybe you can sell it on eBay and
make a big profit; maybe even *five bucks*!
> Now why
> don't you go send your allowance to Heather Mills and then go get ready for
> bed.....
See what I said? Now you tried too hard and hurt your brain. Try putting an ice
pack on your head and getting a good rest, then come back and try again when you
think you can do better. I mean, really, Marek gives better quips than those on his
worst days; you're just not trying. Work on it, before you give trolling a bad
name.
--
~Jamie
D 28IF
>Ahhh, that's the real problem, isn't it? I said I enjoyed an e-mail exchange
>with Francie.
Sorry, that one doesn't cut it.
I did and said the same, and Jamie's not pissed at me. :-)