ATTN:Fatt, John says 9/24/80 he would be dead if it weren't for Yoko
Jeff
Fattuchus
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRLp_EML-c
>
> Jeff
John said lots of things, Jeff. I admire many things about him and
certainly value his interviews, but that does not mean I agree with
all he said.
John said a number of things that were silly, wrong or hurt people
i.e. telling people during his Playboy interview that Sean was really
his first son and that his son Julian was born out of a bottle of
whiskey on a Saturday night, etc.
In his Playboy interview he claimed he was a great talent scout
because he supposedly found two super talents: Paul McCartney and
Yoko. In your view, do you really think Yoko is in the same league in
talent as McCartney? Seriously?
John also said he hopes he dies before Yoko because he could not live
without her. Well, he got his wish.
Jeff
> On Mar 13, 10:41 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRLp_EML-c
>
> > Jeff
>
> John said lots of things, Jeff. I admire many things about him and
> certainly value his interviews, but that does not mean I agree with
> all he said.
The topic here is about Yoko, Fatt. We're talking about how he
felt about her..about 3 months before he died. It's in his own
words. You either respect him about this or you don't. It
doesn't matter.
> John said a number of things that were silly, wrong or hurt people
> i.e. telling people during his Playboy interview that Sean was really
> his first son
So now it's "John" that hurts people instead of Yoko? We'll at least,
we're making progress and that everything isn't Yoko's fault.
What I made out of what he really said about Sean, is that he
meant he was taking his responsibility of being a father for
the first time seriously this time around, which he did.
and that his son Julian was born out of a bottle of
> whiskey on a Saturday night, etc.
That isn't what he said. He said that "he" felt he himself
was born out of a whiskey bottle on a Saturday night
and that he also felt that much or most of the population
probably was. He never said "Sean" specifically was.
> In his Playboy interview he claimed he was a great talent scout
> because he supposedly found two super talents: Paul McCartney and
> Yoko. In your view, do you really think Yoko is in the same league in
> talent as McCartney? Seriously?
It doesn't matter what you or I think about this, Fatt. It's his
opinion
only, and he is/was entitled to it. What does matter is that he
found the love of his life when he was alive, and some people never
do.
>
> John also said he hopes he dies before Yoko because he could not live
> without her.
Right.
>>Well, he got his wish.
Yes.
BlackMonk
"Fattuchus" <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7d1a4783-514d-41eb...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 13, 10:41 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRLp_EML-c
>
> Jeff
< John said lots of things, Jeff. I admire many things about him and
certainly value his interviews, but that does not mean I agree with
all he said.
John said a number of things that were silly, wrong or hurt people
i.e. telling people during his Playboy interview that Sean was really
his first son and that his son Julian was born out of a bottle of
whiskey on a Saturday night, etc.
In his Playboy interview he claimed he was a great talent scout
because he supposedly found two super talents: Paul McCartney and
Yoko. In your view, do you really think Yoko is in the same league in
talent as McCartney? Seriously? >
John did. What qualifies you to say that John's artistic judgements were
objectively wrong?
marcus
I think you are not remembering what John said incorrectly. IIRC,
during that interview, he was bemoaning the fact that he was the
result of a drunken frolic between Alfred and Julia, and regretting
that he had done the same re: Julian. It was an apologetic tone for
the way Julian had come into the world, and neglect by the superstar
Dad during Julian's childhood. He was hoping to make amends by
actually nurturing a child that he and Yoko had planned for
marcus
> On Mar 14, 5:18 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 10:41 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRLp_EML-c
>
> > > Jeff
>
> > John said lots of things, Jeff. I admire many things about him and
> > certainly value his interviews, but that does not mean I agree with
> > all he said.
>
> > John said a number of things that were silly, wrong or hurt people
> > i.e. telling people during his Playboy interview that Sean was really
> > his first son and that his son Julian was born out of a bottle of
> > whiskey on a Saturday night, etc.
>
> > In his Playboy interview he claimed he was a great talent scout
> > because he supposedly found two super talents: Paul McCartney and
> > Yoko. In your view, do you really think Yoko is in the same league in
> > talent as McCartney? Seriously?
>
> > John also said he hopes he dies before Yoko because he could not live
> > without her. Well, he got his wish.
>
> during that interview, he was bemoaning the fact that he was the
> result of a drunken frolic between Alfred and Julia, and regretting
> that he had done the same re: Julian. It was an apologetic tone for
> the way Julian had come into the world, and neglect by the superstar
> Dad during Julian's childhood. He was hoping to make amends by
*** should have been, "I think you are remembering what John said
incorrectly."
Fattuchus
> On Mar 14, 4:18 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 13, 10:41 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRLp_EML-c
>
> > > Jeff
>
> > John said lots of things, Jeff. I admire many things about him and
> > certainly value his interviews, but that does not mean I agree with
> > all he said.
>
> The topic here is about Yoko, Fatt. We're talking about how he
> felt about her..about 3 months before he died. It's in his own
> words. You either respect him about this or you don't. It
> doesn't matter.
There's no question John was deeply in love. Sometimes when people
fall in love, their brains become squishy.
Fattuchus
> On Mar 14, 5:18 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 13, 10:41 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRLp_EML-c
>
> > > Jeff
>
> > John said lots of things, Jeff. I admire many things about him and
> > certainly value his interviews, but that does not mean I agree with
> > all he said.
>
> > John said a number of things that were silly, wrong or hurt people
> > i.e. telling people during his Playboy interview that Sean was really
> > his first son and that his son Julian was born out of a bottle of
> > whiskey on a Saturday night, etc.
>
> I think you are not remembering what John said incorrectly. IIRC,
> during that interview, he was bemoaning the fact that he was the
> result of a drunken frolic between Alfred and Julia, and regretting
> that he had done the same re: Julian. It was an apologetic tone for
> the way Julian had come into the world, and neglect by the superstar
> Dad during Julian's childhood.
Years ago I read a version of that interview where John said straight
out that he felt that Sean was his first son. The interviewer
appeared to be taken aback by the coldness of that remark and said
something like, "You don't really mean that" or something like that.
Then John made some remark that 90% of us are born out of a bottle of
whiskey on a Saturday night, including himself. IIRC he ended his
thoughts by saying he loved Sean and Julian the same.
In later versions of that interview, John's words that Sean was his
first son have been edited out. I don't know how that happened but
I'd guess that someone thought they were very hurtful.
Julian read the Playboy interview and has indicated he was hurt by
John's remarks that he was born out of a bottle of whiskey on a
Saturday night. It sounds as if Julian was an unwanted accident. HOw
would any child feel if his or her dad told that to the world, and
commented how he felt the younger child was his true first child? IMO
that was stupid and mean.
Fattuchus
> On Mar 14, 9:13 am, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think you are not remembering what John said incorrectly. IIRC,
> > during that interview, he was bemoaning the fact that he was the
> > result of a drunken frolic between Alfred and Julia, and regretting
> > that he had done the same re: Julian. It was an apologetic tone for
> > the way Julian had come into the world, and neglect by the superstar
> > Dad during Julian's childhood. He was hoping to make amends by
> > actually nurturing a child that he and Yoko had planned for
>
> and Julian in direct opposition to Sean. Think about what it must have
> felt like having your dad pimp that little nugget to the world when
> you were 17 rather than in a private talk with you.
I bet it hurt like hell. Unfortunately, John was shot dead soon after
that, so Julian never had a chance to resolve that issue with his dad.
marcus
That's Lennon, guilty of expressing honesty.
marcus
> face for himself and his mother." It's faster and cheaper than years
> of therapy.
>
> Nah, Julian seems the type to go the therapy route <g>.
I'm really tired of this John was a terrible father to Julian shit.
Do you not remember what John was actively involved with during
Julian's formative years, and how many other people(just prior to
becoming one of the most famous, most mobbed people of all time) have
had that situation? Do you not remember Cynthia draggin Julian from
one post-Lennon marriage relationship to another? Can you not see
that what John "did" to Julian, though not model fatherhood, was much
better than what thousands of other children of loveless/abusive
marriages and parental relationships have endured?(perhaps some folks
who read or post here) Can you not see that John...honest
John...regretted what had happened? And finally, do you not see how
your irrational compulsively obsessive hatred of Yoko makes you feel
that Julian was more deprived than the kid in the next apt. or next
house, or down the block from you is being abused?
TheWalrusWasDanny
> John did. What qualifies you to say that John's artistic judgements were
> objectively wrong?
Evidence - The living breathing and appauling Yoko Ono.
Danny
rwalker
wrote:
Exactly. My younger brother and I both knew since we were 11 or 12
that our older brother was the only "planned" child in our family. The
only difference in this case is that there are several million people
judging Lennon (and holding him to a far higher standard than that to
which they'd hold most people, or themselves).
Fattuchus
Of course. And some "truths" are better left unsaid completely.
I recall reading one author who said that John would sometimes
saythings that other people would dare not even think.
>
> He was never that stupid in public remarks for the record about Yoko -
> esp. with her usually right there beside him. You can see him
> constantly adjust his answers to accommodate her presence from the
> earliest days.
Absolutely. John was deferential to Yoko, especially in public. He
should have been similarly mindful of Julian's feelings before he
opened his mouth. Julian was just a teenager. John, of all people,
knew what it was like to feel abandoned by his parents.
Fattuchus
> > and that his son Julian was born out of a bottle of
> > > whiskey on a Saturday night, etc.
>
> undependable.
>
> The real quote, before Fattuchus dishonestly twisted it:
>
> "I'm not going to lie to Julian. Ninety percent of the people on this
> planet, especially in the West, were born out of a bottle of whiskey on
> a Saturday night, and there was no intent to have children. So 90
> percent of us -- that includes everybody -- were accidents. I don't know
> anybody who was a planned child. All of us were Saturday-night specials.
> Julian is in the majority, along with me and everybody else. Sean is a
> planned child, and therein lies the difference. I don't love Julian any
> less as a child. He's still my son, whether he came from a bottle of
> whiskey or because they didn't have pills in those days. He's here, he
> belongs to me and he always will."
>
> > > In his Playboy interview he claimed he was a great talent scout
> > > because he supposedly found two super talents: Paul McCartney and
> > > Yoko. In your view, do you really think Yoko is in the same league in
> > > talent as McCartney? Seriously?
>
I did not dishonestly twist anything.
And, BTW, Julian himself was offended by the quote and said so. You
or marcus or anyone can try to dress it up as much as you like, but
Julian was hurt by it. Who can blame him?
My last point: you missed the part (which in recent years is often
omitted i print) where John said he felt as if Sean was really his
first child becaue Sean was planned. (translation: Sean was wanted,
Julian was not)
>
> "Throughout my career, I've selected to work with - for more than a
> one-night stand, say, with David Bowie or Elton John - only two people:
> Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono. I brought Paul into the original group, the
> Quarrymen; he brought George in and George brought Ringo in. And the
> second person who interested me as an artist and somebody I could work
> with was Yoko Ono. That ain't bad picking."
So? Lennon thought he was a great talent scout because he picked
McCartney and Yoko. I find it hard to believe that any rational
person would consider them to be in the same league. The answer is
simple: John was in love, and his brains were squishy.
Fattuchus
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com>
Julian was offended by John's words and said so. Plus, Julian had the
added embarrassment of John discussing this in front of the whole
world and, at the same time, spending little time with Julian, while
being a devoted dad to Sean.
marcus
> On Mar 14, 1:49 pm, rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com>
> for babies that survived into adulthood. I do hold everyone else to
> this standard, especially myself, so naturally I disagree with his
> theory.
>
> It's the principle. From my perspective, he publicly called both
> himself and Julian trash which I have trouble seeing as some kind of
> jocular father-son bonding moment. The remarks were softened in the
> context that PR posted, but actions speak louder than words.
>
They weren't "softened", it's exactly what he said.
marcus
> >
> >That's Lennon, guilty of expressing honesty.
>
> Exactly. My younger brother and I both knew since we were 11 or 12
> that our older brother was the only "planned" child in our family. The
> only difference in this case is that there are several million people
> judging Lennon (and holding him to a far higher standard than that to
And that's what they do to Yoko as well, hold this woman they will
never know to a standard they would never hold themselves or their own
relatives and friends to.
marcus
> Absolutely. John was deferential to Yoko, especially in public. He
> should have been similarly mindful of Julian's feelings before he
> opened his mouth. Julian was just a teenager. John, of all people,
> knew what it was like to feel abandoned by his parents.-
What a lot of people don't remember (or were too young to know) is
that during the Sixties and early 70s, whether it be during the Bed-
Ins., as guests on TV, or in print interviews, people criticized John
for monopolizing the conversations, and not giving Yoko a chance to
speak.
What Yoko-bashers don't understand is that the post-"Lost Weekend"
John Lennon wasn't being deferential because he feared his wife, or
that she had reduced him to a "pussy-whipped" husband, he was doing so
out of respect for his belief in equality of marriage partners...which
he arrived at, admittedly, through an oft-traveled crooked path with
bumps along the way, but an equality p.o.v. nonetheless.
rwalker
wrote:
>On Mar 14, 4:49 pm, rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
Right.
Fattuchus
I don't know about that. If I had a brother who was married with a
child and he had an affair with some weird, impoverished gal 8 years
his senior who was evidently after his money, and she encouraged him
to leave his wife and child . . . . I'd be pissed at that "other
woman" and my brother. If that "other woman" got my brother hooked
on heroin and encouraged him to leave his job, I'd dislike that "other
woman." And if we were all living happily in England, and that "other
woman" convinced my brother to leave England for the US without so
much as saying goodbye to his family, and if he disappeared for a few
months or years, I'd be worried and pissed.
I could go on and on, but you get the drift.
Fattuchus
> On Mar 14, 5:16 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely. John was deferential to Yoko, especially in public. He
> > should have been similarly mindful of Julian's feelings before he
> > opened his mouth. Julian was just a teenager. John, of all people,
> > knew what it was like to feel abandoned by his parents.-
>
> What a lot of people don't remember (or were too young to know) is
> that during the Sixties and early 70s, whether it be during the Bed-
> Ins., as guests on TV, or in print interviews, people criticized John
> for monopolizing the conversations, and not giving Yoko a chance to
> speak.
Perhaps there were people who criticized John for not letting Yoko
speak. I don't recall that at all . . . . indeed, I recall there were
quite a few people who thought John had lost his mind getting involved
with that weird woman, and that he made a mistake insisting that have
so much time to speak when most reporters and the public were not
interested in her.
In her book, May Pang describes some of John's efforts to give Yoko
publicity whether the reporter or public wanted it or not. He was her
biggest promoter and fan.
> What Yoko-bashers don't understand is that the post-"Lost Weekend"
> John Lennon wasn't being deferential because he feared his wife, or
> that she had reduced him to a "pussy-whipped" husband, he was doing so
> out of respect for his belief in equality of marriage partners...
It's sad that so many well meaning feminists fall for that clap trap.
No, I don't think J & Y were truly feminists (i.e. egalitarians). IMO
Yoko dominated John. (BTW, this was noticed by Pete Shotton, Linda
McCartney and Julian . . . . at least these were the people who said
it publicly. )
Pardon the sarcasm, but he became the Mrs. The new couple was Mr. and
Mrs. Yoko Ono. Yoko was the Mister and John was the Mrs. How else
can one logically describe the relationship when a man gives an
interview and proudly tells the world, "She threw me out of the
house." What type of crap is this? John was the wage earner in the
house. What man "allows" his wife free access to his trmendous
personal wealth while he is supposedly tossed out of their luxury
apartment, with a budget of $10,000? Did you read May's book, and how
John and May had to live hand to mouth, sponging off friends, while
Yoko was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more)
living in luxury, making records that no one would buy, going on tour,
etc., etc.?
which
> he arrived at, admittedly, through an oft-traveled crooked path with
> bumps along the way, but an equality p.o.v. nonetheless.
That was not equality. No, their relationship was female chauvinism.
And BTW, I have a different "read" with regard to this issue of
"The post-Lost Weekend John Lennon wasn't being deferential because
he feared his wife, or
that she had reduced him to a 'pussy-whipped' husband, he was doing
so out of respect for his belief in equality of marriage partners."
IMO John acted deferential because he truly loved Yoko, and because
she demonstrated repeatedly that her feelings toward John were not
nearly as strong. She could take him or leave him. Read May Pang's
book. Read Yoko's essay which is part of the Lennon Anthology box.
Read Yoko's Playboy interview.
Yoko herself said she was different from many other women in that she
did not have a strong emotional dependence on a man and was a moving
on kinda gal. In Yoko's case, she deeply resented John for several
reasons . . . .she wanted to be the breadwinner in the family, she
blamed him for her failed career, she felt it was "HIS FAULT" that the
world considered her a "dragon lady," and he publicly humiliated her
when he cheated on her at that post election party in 1972. Yoko had
a history of short lived marriages before she met John, and she tended
to move from man to man as long as her new husband could finance and/
or promote her career.
John was an emotionally damaged man given his childhood and tremendous
use of drugs. He was needy and dependent on Yoko, and she knew it.
No, the truth is, John was whipped and Yoko knew it and used that to
her advantage. End of story.
John Doherty
us in the sane community...
> On Mar 14, 8:48 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > And that's what they do to Yoko as well, hold this woman they will
> > never know to a standard they would never hold themselves or their own
> > relatives and friends to.
>
On Mar 15, 2:15 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I don't know about that. If I had a brother...
You don't, at least not in John Lennon. He was not your brother.
.... who was married with a child and he had an affair ...
Yoko was his wife for far longer than Cynthia. Why reduce her to
"affair". At the time of this interview, they were legally married for
what, 12 years? Why do you find it necessary to distort the record to
suit your jaundiced perspective?
Yes, the marriage began as an affair. But as Cynthia said on several
occasions, when she first met Yoko, she thought she was perfect for
John-- this was the woman he had been waiting for.
> with some weird, impoverished gal 8 years
> his senior who was evidently after his money,
Where's the "evidence" of this evident statement? And furthermore, the
law makes no distinction in these matters. Whoever a person picks as
their spouse is entitled to inherit their wordly goods and to live
with the benefits while they are married, internet cranks
notwithstanding.
> and she encouraged him
> to leave his wife and child . . . .
But so did the wife Cynthia, if you read her book. She knew it was
over and made no play to keep him. So, John, & Cyn are off the hook,
but Yoko is the evil perpetrator?
...I'd be pissed at that "other woman" and my brother.
Again, Lennon was not your brother, though it is enlightening for you
post this fantasy on the internet. It's illuminating to understand how
you make these great leaps of logic to form your one woman Yoko Hate
Squad.
> If that "other woman" got my brother hooked
> on heroin
This is like the canard of "my kid is good, but he just got in with a
bad crowd". Whenever you hear that, you can bet most members of the
"bad crowd" have parents saying the same thing. Yoko may have been
using first, and she may well have recommended it to JL, but he was an
adult, and made his own decision to start using. Don't let him off the
hook so easily.
> and encouraged him to leave his job,
Does Lennon's opinion on this count, or are you still treating him as
a brain damaged child in terms of legal responsiblities? I believe
he's on record on this point. Lennon's job was a s musician. He did
not quit that-- just the band he was in.
>I'd dislike that "other
> woman." And if we were all living happily in England, and that "other
> woman" convinced my brother to leave England for the US without so
> much as saying goodbye to his family,
John did not seem unhappy in NYC. Do you think he was a prisoner
there?
..and if he disappeared for a few
> months or years, I'd be worried and pissed.
>
> I could go on and on, but you get the drift.
We get the drifts all right, a snow job full of your personal neurosis
and delusion about this. BTW, you are up to 9 of 31 posts in this
thread: beware your tendency for verbal diarrhea on this....
The more frequently you post, obsessively titting every tat, the
crazier you seem.
Maybe try to impose some time restrictions-- try and see if you can
limit yourself to no more than two posts a day in any given thread.
Fattuchus
> I am going to parse & translate this latest Fatts' rant for those of
> us in the sane community...
>
> > On Mar 14, 8:48 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > And that's what they do to Yoko as well, hold this woman they will
> > > never know to a standard they would never hold themselves or their own
> > > relatives and friends to.
>
> On Mar 15, 2:15 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know about that. If I had a brother...
>
> You don't, at least not in John Lennon. He was not your brother.
True, but marcus posed the question and mentioned relatives, so I
answered him.
>
> .... who was married with a child and he had an affair ...
>
> Yoko was his wife for far longer than Cynthia. Why reduce her to
> "affair". At the time of this interview, they were legally married for
> what, 12 years? Why do you find it necessary to distort the record to
> suit your jaundiced perspective?
I did not say their whole relationship was an affair; but it started
as an affair.
>
> Yes, the marriage began as an affair. But as Cynthia said on several
> occasions, when she first met Yoko, she thought she was perfect for
> John-- this was the woman he had been waiting for.
>
> > with some weird, impoverished gal 8 years
> > his senior who was evidently after his money,
>
> Where's the "evidence" of this evident statement?
Read May Pang's book, Fred's book, and the Norman book, to start. The
Bramwell book is also helpful.
And furthermore, the
> law makes no distinction in these matters. Whoever a person picks as
> their spouse is entitled to inherit their wordly goods and to live
> with the benefits while they are married, internet cranks
> notwithstanding.
>
> > and she encouraged him
> > to leave his wife and child . . . .
>
> But so did the wife Cynthia, if you read her book.
I don't think Cynthia encouraged John to leave. And she certainly did
not want John to abandon Julian. What gave you that idea?
She knew it was
> over and made no play to keep him.
So, John, & Cyn are off the hook,
> but Yoko is the evil perpetrator?
IMO, Cynthia and Julian are total innocents here. You can't see that?
Fattuchus
> We get the drifts all right, a snow job full of your personal neurosis
> and delusion about this.
Not neurosis and not delusion, for those who open their eyes and ears
and refuse to bury their head in the sand.
BTW, there are quite a few here at rmb who agree with what I
say . . . they just remain publicly silent about it, or don't write
about it much.
BTW, you are up to 9 of 31 posts in this
> thread: beware your tendency for verbal diarrhea on this....
>
> The more frequently you post, obsessively titting every tat, the
> crazier you seem.
I don't give a shit about your opinion. Someone started a thread
directed to me (see the title????) and I'm going to participate. My
posts are on topic for rmb and on topic for this thread.
>
> Maybe try to impose some time restrictions-- try and see if you can
> limit yourself to no more than two posts a day in any given thread.
Maybe you can limit your posts. Better yet: I don't tell you how and
what to discuss. Why don't you show me the same courtesy? If you
start a thread I am not interested in or don't like, I skip it. Would
you want me to boss you around or suggest you are a psycho?
Crisstti
> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7d1a4783-514d-41eb...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 13, 10:41 pm, Jeff <yourimageunre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYRLp_EML-c
>
> > Jeff
>
> < John said lots of things, Jeff. I admire many things about him and
> certainly value his interviews, but that does not mean I agree with
> all he said.
>
> John said a number of things that were silly, wrong or hurt people
> i.e. telling people during his Playboy interview that Sean was really
> his first son and that his son Julian was born out of a bottle of
> whiskey on a Saturday night, etc.
>
> because he supposedly found two super talents: Paul McCartney and
> Yoko. In your view, do you really think Yoko is in the same league in
> talent as McCartney? Seriously? >
>
> objectively wrong?
He didn't quite say that, actually.
The Harmonic Wheel
> BTW, there are quite a few here at rmb who agree with what I
> say . . .
I raise my hand to indicate that I agrees with Fattuchus, and I think
John D. needs to back off with calling anyone neurotic or delusional.
I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with her
observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
Crisstti
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
But you didn't find out about it reading a magazine interview. I'm
sure it woiuld have been much less of a problem anyway if John had
take a more active interest in Julian.
Fattuchus
wrote:
Thanks, HW.
I am most amazed (and dismayed) by certain people who are quick to
make personal attacks on other posters because they have a difference
of opinion. RMB should be a place for discussion of Beatles related
issues. How can people be free to exchange opinions and ideas when
others resort to name calling and post counting?
Crisstti
> On Mar 14, 1:49 pm, rwalker <rwal...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:39:19 -0700 (PDT), marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com>
> for babies that survived into adulthood. I do hold everyone else to
> this standard, especially myself, so naturally I disagree with his
> theory.
>
> It's the principle. From my perspective, he publicly called both
> himself and Julian trash which I have trouble seeing as some kind of
> jocular father-son bonding moment. The remarks were softened in the
> context that PR posted, but actions speak louder than words.
Exactly.
>
> Still, given how things turned out, maybe it was for the best that he
> at least dealt with the subject publicly for post-mortem reference.
> Better than nothing.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
Mack A. Damia
<from_me...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with her
>observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
Don't really care one way or another cuz I don't respond to trolls.
but this statement sets off very loud bells and alarms.
She certainly isn't, "sane or right", or are you being sarcastic?
Fattuchus
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:12:45 -0700 (PDT), The Harmonic Wheel
>
> >I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with her
> >observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
>
> Don't really care one way or another cuz I don't respond to trolls.
> but this statement sets off very loud bells and alarms.
>
> She certainly isn't, "sane or right", or are you being sarcastic?
Sigh.
Crisstti
I do agree that their relationship was not exactly equal... John made
some reference to that in the Playboy interview... will look it up.
Fattuchus
Of course.
The Harmonic Wheel
>
> >I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with her
> >observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
>
> Don't really care one way or another cuz I don't respond to trolls.
> but this statement sets off very loud bells and alarms.
>
> She certainly isn't, "sane or right", or are you being sarcastic?
No, I'm not.
Are YOU being a troll again.
Fattuchus
wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:19 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:12:45 -0700 (PDT), The Harmonic Wheel
>
> > <from_me_to_...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with her
> > >observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
>
> > Don't really care one way or another cuz I don't respond to trolls.
> > but this statement sets off very loud bells and alarms.
>
> > She certainly isn't, "sane or right", or are you being sarcastic?
>
> No, I'm not.
>
> Are YOU being a troll again.
Some people will never get it. In their view, Yoko, the eternally
grieving widow, is covered in Teflon. She can do no wrong, and even
if she does, out of supposed respect for John, they will not criticize
or disagree with her. Yoko can throw John out of the house, encourage
him to sleep around, threaten him with divorce, threaten to abort his
baby unless he gives her control of the family business, claim she is
the true composer in the family, admit she was jealous of John's
success, etc. It's all good and beautiful. In their eyes, she was a
good wife and an even better widow.
And people such as myself are not allowed to talk about it in a
Beatles NG or in a thread on the subject of J & Y.
Pathetic.
Mack A. Damia
<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with her
>> >observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
>>
>> Don't really care one way or another cuz I don't respond to trolls.
>> but this statement sets off very loud bells and alarms.
>>
>> She certainly isn't, "sane or right", or are you being sarcastic?
>
>Don't make the mistake of viewing Robert as a rational person.
I had high hopes for him.
Oops, there goes another Yoko-retard.
Fattuchus
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:26:11 -0700, poisoned rose
>
> <nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>
> >> >I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with her
> >> >observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
>
> >> Don't really care one way or another cuz I don't respond to trolls.
> >> but this statement sets off very loud bells and alarms.
>
> >> She certainly isn't, "sane or right", or are you being sarcastic?
>
> >Don't make the mistake of viewing Robert as a rational person.
>
> I had high hopes for him.
>
> Oops, there goes another Yoko-retard.
As I said to PR elsewhere, there are many, many Yoko Tards here and
outside of rmb. If you want to consider us all nuts or all trolls, be
my guest. Your loss.
This is a Beatles newsgroup, so you should not be surprised that there
will be quite a few people who support the Beatles and who criticize
YO.
John Doherty
>
> > I am going to parse & translate this latest Fatts' rant for those of
> > us in the sane community...
>
> > > On Mar 14, 8:48 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > And that's what they do to Yoko as well, hold this woman they will
> > > > never know to a standard they would never hold themselves or their own
> > > > relatives and friends to.
>
> > On Mar 15, 2:15 am, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't know about that. If I had a brother...
>
> > You don't, at least not in John Lennon. He was not your brother.
>
> True, but marcus posed the question and mentioned relatives, so I
> answered him.
>
>
>
> > .... who was married with a child and he had an affair ...
>
> > Yoko was his wife for far longer than Cynthia. Why reduce her to
> > "affair". At the time of this interview, they were legally married for
> > what, 12 years? Why do you find it necessary to distort the record to
> > suit your jaundiced perspective?
>
> I did not say their whole relationship was an affair; but it started
> as an affair.
>
>
>
> > Yes, the marriage began as an affair. But as Cynthia said on several
> > occasions, when she first met Yoko, she thought she was perfect for
> > John-- this was the woman he had been waiting for.
>
> > > with some weird, impoverished gal 8 years
> > > his senior who was evidently after his money,
>
> > Where's the "evidence" of this evident statement?
>
On Mar 15, 3:44 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Read May Pang's book, Fred's book, and the Norman book, to start. The
> Bramwell book is also helpful.
The Norman book to start I read when it came out. The allegedly
scandalous details you cite from Pang and Bramwell don't surprise me.
Unlike you, I accept John's ability as a legal adult to make decisions
about who he marries and what flows from that.
>
> And furthermore, the
>
> > law makes no distinction in these matters. Whoever a person picks as
> > their spouse is entitled to inherit their worldly goods and to live
> > with the benefits while they are married, internet cranks
> > notwithstanding.
>
> > > and she encouraged him
> > > to leave his wife and child . . . .
>
> > But so did the wife Cynthia, if you read her book.
>
> I don't think Cynthia encouraged John to leave.
Do you think she fought to keep him?
Of course not. She saw what John saw: that Yoko was perfect for John,
and said as much in her book. It was "game, set, match". Do you recall
that?
> And she certainly did
> not want John to abandon Julian. What gave you that idea?
What gave you the idea I have that idea? You do seem most comfortable
inventing other people's opinions to rail against.
>
> She knew it was
>
> > over and made no play to keep him.
>
> So, John, & Cyn are off the hook,
>
> > but Yoko is the evil perpetrator?
>
> IMO, Cynthia and Julian are total innocents here. You can't see that?
Julian as a kid, totally, sure. Cynthia was an adult when John left;
by definition not a "total innocent". But I regard her well, and
enjoyed her book. She may have got bad advice from an attorney in the
divorce, and John certainly behaved very badly in alleging infidelity
etc.
But John did that, not Yoko. Even if you believe Yoko put him up to
these things, the man John Lennon stood in open court and said them.
I think John was a lousy father to Julian, while with Cyn and much of
the time after, too. But so did he.
On Mar 15, 3:55 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 10:32 am, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>
> > We get the drifts all right, a snow job full of your personal neurosis
> > and delusion about this.
>
> Not neurosis and not delusion, for those who open their eyes and ears
> and refuse to bury their head in the sand.
I see. "Open our eyes" & embrace the Fatts take on all of this: Yoko
is always to be assumed guilty until proven otherwise, and Lennon was
a lonely pathetic manchild who was viciously treated by his "mean"
wife. Therefore if only Fatts was able to intervene and somehow remove
Yoko from John's life, things would have been much better for him.
No, if one of us has their head in the sand, it ain't me. I know all
these supposed terrible things Yoko did (most of which John did , too
or signed off on), but refuse to hold her alone responsible, like you
do.
>
> BTW, there are quite a few here at rmb who agree with what I
> say . . . they just remain publicly silent about it, or don't write
> about it much.
There are plenty here who have no affection for Yoko, who hate her
music, who think she broke up the Beatles, who think Lennon would have
been better off without her, who think she is a talentless gold
digger, etc. I don't feel compelled to retort that stuff. Everyone is
entitled to their opinion.
There's no one else here who goes as far as you do: suggesting she
enabled his death by being lax on security, or holding her having a
sex life after John's death against her while giving Lennon a pass for
fucking other women , even at a party that both were attending.
You really do seem to have a basically childish view of adult
relationships, which makes me think you have never had an adult
romantic relationship, or if you did, it never got very far.
>
> BTW, you are up to 9 of 31 posts in this
>
> > thread: beware your tendency for verbal diarrhea on this....
>
> > The more frequently you post, obsessively titting every tat, the
> > crazier you seem.
>
> I don't give a shit about your opinion. Someone started a thread
> directed to me (see the title????) and I'm going to participate. My
> posts are on topic for rmb and on topic for this thread.
You're right that in this case, someone called the thread to your
attention. But if it were meant just for you, I'm sure he would have
sent it by email. By posting it here, we're inviting others to
comment.
And I'm of course reacting to your past experience of contributing up
to 40 or 50% of the threads in any post about Yoko and your attacks on
her.
>
>
>
> > Maybe try to impose some time restrictions-- try and see if you can
> > limit yourself to no more than two posts a day in any given thread.
>
> Maybe you can limit your posts.
But take a gander, Fatts: I already do.
In this thread of 34 posts so far, two are mine and now 11 are yours:
you are upping the percentage of Yoko hate posts you offer.
>Better yet: I don't tell you how and what to discuss.
I have never told you what to discuss or not discuss. I have
suggested that you will seem less unhinged by refraining from sending
every thought you have in the form yet another post. But go ahead,
keep up the blizzard if that works for you. I think most people can
see the amount of posts you send and that says something about you
that you don't intend: that you are crazy obsessive about this
subject.
>Why don't you show me the same courtesy? If you
> start a thread I am not interested in or don't like, I skip it. Would
> you want me to boss you around or suggest you are a psycho?
First off, I contend not that you are psycho, but that you are
delusional, obsessive and neurotic. Why again do you need to change
someone's words when you respond?
In any case, I have no degree in medicine, so that diagnosis is worth
what you paid for it;-)
But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and posts like an
obsessive, delusional duck, then I'd have to say it's a duck.
Fattuchus
> some reference to that in the Playboy interview... will look it up.-
John was head over heels in love and made that clear in his songs and
interviews. He would speak almost worshipfully about Yoko. It was
almost as if he was absorbed by a succubus. On one level, it seems
romantic and sweet, but the problem is that it was not mutual. IMO,
he allowed himself to be "played."
Apparently quite a few people had that opinion and John knew it as
evidenced by his statement in the Playboy interview where he
vigorously denied that he was under Yoko's "control." Why would John
say that and seem so defensive about it unless he had heard that claim
from others?
Mack A. Damia
<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>It's just amazing that a few people still coddle her hateful illness.
>And then of course she comes back with her standard "Objecting to my
>daily, repetitive, deranged clawing at Yoko is the same as believing
>Yoko can do wrong and that she can never, ever be criticized" crud.
>
>She should draw 10 "Fuck off, Fatty" posts for every one "Fuck off,
>Raja" post which Raja receives.
As I mentioned before, I consider her a troll as she manages to turn
practically every conversation around to bashing Yoko.
I don't even want to discuss it any futher because it's quite obvious
she's got a major obsessive issue with the Lennon-Ono subject.
Bats in the belfry.
The Harmonic Wheel
> Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with her
> > >observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
>
> > Don't really care one way or another cuz I don't respond to trolls.
> > but this statement sets off very loud bells and alarms.
>
> > She certainly isn't, "sane or right", or are you being sarcastic?
>
No, don't.
That would be a terrible mistake.
Poisoned Rose, on the other hand is the kindest, most wonderfully
rational man to ever grace this newsgroup.
Fattuchus
>
> > > > with some weird, impoverished gal 8 years
> > > > his senior who was evidently after his money,
>
> > > Where's the "evidence" of this evident statement?
>
> On Mar 15, 3:44 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Read May Pang's book, Fred's book, and the Norman book, to start. The
> > Bramwell book is also helpful.
>
> The Norman book to start I read when it came out.
The Norman books discusses John's enthusiasm to marry Yoko. It
specifically says that Yoko was reluctant at first, but was convinced
to marry John when he told her something like, "This will be great.
You are a talented artist and I'm rich."
How do you interpret that? I think it's pretty obvious. Don't you
see it?
The allegedly
> scandalous details you cite from Pang and Bramwell don't surprise me.
I'm not sure what to make of that. Are you saying you don't believe
them? Have you read those books?
> Unlike you, I accept John's ability as a legal adult to make decisions
> about who he marries and what flows from that.
Of course John was an adult and was capable of making decisions, but
that is not the issue. John made many decisions. Some were bad ones.
>
> > I don't think Cynthia encouraged John to leave.
>
> Do you think she fought to keep him?
That's not the same as encouraging him to leave.
However, IIRC after John threatened Cynthia with divorce, Cynthia
tried to have a conciliatory meeting with John and brought her mother
along. John insisted on having Yoko present which probably caused
Cynthia a lot of emotional pain. So I would say that Cynthia did want
to save her marriage, assuming John showed sincere interest. He was
not interested. What was Cynthia supposed to do? Beg? Throw herself
at him? Promise to take LSD and heroin with him to make him happy?
>
> > She knew it was
>
> > > over and made no play to keep him.
That is not the same as saying Cynthia encouraged the end of her
marriage.
>
> > So, John, & Cyn are off the hook,
>
> > > but Yoko is the evil perpetrator?
>
> > IMO, Cynthia and Julian are total innocents here. You can't see that?
>
> Julian as a kid, totally, sure. Cynthia was an adult when John left;
> by definition not a "total innocent". But I regard her well, and
> enjoyed her book. She may have got bad advice from an attorney in the
> divorce, and John certainly behaved very badly in alleging infidelity
> etc.
Yes, he did behave badly. The way he treated Cynthia in the end was
cruel.
>
> But John did that, not Yoko.
I agree.
The Harmonic Wheel
> Did you see "The Hurt Locker" yet? It was Best Picture, you know.
I hope to see it soon.
Thanks for your review.
Sounds great.
Jeff
Yeah, but this is March 15th, 2010. Will you be doing it March 15th,
2020?
Fattuchus
>
> On Mar 15, 3:55 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > BTW, there are quite a few here at rmb who agree with what I
> > say . . . they just remain publicly silent about it, or don't write
> > about it much.
>
> There are plenty here who have no affection for Yoko, who hate her
> music, who think she broke up the Beatles, who think Lennon would have
> been better off without her, who think she is a talentless gold
> digger, etc. I don't feel compelled to retort that stuff. Everyone is
> entitled to their opinion.
>
> There's no one else here who goes as far as you do: suggesting she
> enabled his death by being lax on security,
You're wrong. I'm not in the mood to research old posts in rmb, but
I'm not alone in my view. I'm not alone here at rmb and I'm not alone
outside of rmb. I posted links to some websites which agree with my
opinion.
or holding her having a
> sex life after John's death against her while giving Lennon a pass for
> fucking other women , even at a party that both were attending.
When did I say I give John a pass for having sex at that party in
November 1972? I don't give him a pass at all. John's behavior was
disgusting, and I don't blame Yoko for being hurt and angry.
But there is a big difference IMO between having sex once with some
stranger you don't care about while drunk out of your mind, and having
a repeated, serious emotional affair and repeated sex with a
"new" (???) boyfriend/partner a few weeks (or days???) after the
supposed love of your life was shot dead in front of you.
I have no problem with Yoko (or McCartney or anyone for that matter)
going through an appropriate mourning period for their beloved and
getting on with his/her life. The difference between Paul on the one
hand and Yoko on the other is that Paul waited a good year or more.
And Paul did not keep Heather a secret from the world.
Yoko, on the other hand, "hooked up" with Sam Havadtoy within a few
weeks (some say days) and repeatedly held herself out to the world as
the devoted, loyal widow, marketing John, getting phone calls,
interviews, photo ops, etc. because of her new found widow status.
It was a great marketing tool. At the same time that she was bonking
Sam and living with him in a marriage type of relationship, Yoko was
milking her widowhood to the max and keeping Sam a secret.
You don't find that strange? Yoko is busy marketing John (and using
that to market herself) and telling the world how much she loved John
and how devoted she was, and how she misses him, and how shocking it
was that he died, etc. and at the same time, she has a new man
secretly under the sheets?
Crisstti
> On Mar 14, 3:44 pm, poisoned rose <nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > and that his son Julian was born out of a bottle of
> > > > whiskey on a Saturday night, etc.
>
> > undependable.
>
> > The real quote, before Fattuchus dishonestly twisted it:
>
> > "I'm not going to lie to Julian. Ninety percent of the people on this
> > planet, especially in the West, were born out of a bottle of whiskey on
> > a Saturday night, and there was no intent to havechildren. So 90
> > percent of us -- that includes everybody -- were accidents. I don't know
> > anybody who was a plannedchild. All of us were Saturday-night specials.
> > Julian is in the majority, along with me and everybody else. Sean is a
> > plannedchild, and therein lies the difference. I don't love Julian any
> > less as achild. He's still my son, whether he came from a bottle of
> > whiskey or because they didn't have pills in those days. He's here, he
> > belongs to me and he always will."
>
> > > > In his Playboy interview he claimed he was a great talent scout
> > > > because he supposedly found two super talents: Paul McCartney and
> > > > Yoko. In your view, do you really think Yoko is in the same league in
> > > > talent as McCartney? Seriously?
>
> > The real quote, before Fattuchus dishonestly twisted it:
>
> I did not dishonestly twist anything.
>
> And, BTW, Julian himself was offended by the quote and said so. You
> or marcus or anyone can try to dress it up as much as you like, but
> Julian was hurt by it. Who can blame him?
>
> My last point: you missed the part (which in recent years is often
> omitted i print) where John said he felt as if Sean was really his
> firstchildbecaue Sean was planned. (translation: Sean was wanted,
> Julian was not)
Well, there's this in the Playboy interview:
"PLAYBOY: You're being very honest about your feelings toward him to
the point of saying that Sean is your first child. Are you concerned
about hurting him?
LENNON: I'm not going to lie to Julian. Ninety percent of the people
on this planet, especially in the West, were born out of a bottle of
whiskey on a Saturday night, and there was no intent to have children
[...]".
But I cannot find it there John saying Sean was his first child.
Maybe the interviewer is refering to another interview...
>
>
>
> > "Throughout my career, I've selected to work with - for more than a
> > one-night stand, say, with David Bowie or Elton John - only two people:
> > Paul McCartney and Yoko Ono. I brought Paul into the original group, the
> > Quarrymen; he brought George in and George brought Ringo in. And the
> > second person who interested me as an artist and somebody I could work
> > with was Yoko Ono. That ain't bad picking."
>
> So? Lennon thought he was a great talent scout because he picked
> McCartney and Yoko. I find it hard to believe that any rational
> person would consider them to be in the same league. The answer is
> simple: John was in love, and his brains were squishy.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
Crisstti
> > use of drugs. He was needy and dependent on Yoko, and she knew it.
>
> > No, the truth is, John was whipped and Yoko knew it and used that to
> > her advantage. End of story.
>
> I do agree that their relationship was not exactly equal... John made
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
"PLAYBOY: Did you resent having to take so much responsibility, John?
LENNON: Well, sometimes, you know, she'd come home and say, "I'm
tired." I'd say, only partly tongue in cheek, "What the fuck do you
think I am? I'm 24 hours with the baby! Do you think that's easy?" I'd
say, "You're going to take some more interest in the child." I don't
care whether it's a father or a mother. When I'm going on about
pimples and bones and which TV shows to let him watch, I would say,
"Listen, this is important. I don't want to hear about your
$20,000,000 deal tonight!" [To Yoko] I would like both parents to take
care of the children, but how is a different matter."
http://www.john-lennon.com/playboyinterviewwithjohnlennonandyokoono.htm
Mack A. Damia
<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As I mentioned before, I consider her a troll as she manages to turn
>> practically every conversation around to bashing Yoko.
>
>If she was a troll, she would be calculatedly doing this just to tick
>people off, rather than because hate for Yoko burns in her heart as the
>defining essence of her entire character.
Different definitions?
I consider someone a troll if he/she constantly causes discord and
problems. She can have a burning hatred in her heart for YO; she just
needs to check it at the door.
She fulfills the requirements as far as I am concerned.
'Nuff said.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pitiful
BlackMonk
"poisoned rose" <nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote in message
news:nursie-10326C....@news.eternal-september.org...
> Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with
>> >> >her
>> >> >observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
>> >>
>> >> Don't really care one way or another cuz I don't respond to trolls.
>> >> but this statement sets off very loud bells and alarms.
>> >>
>> >> She certainly isn't, "sane or right", or are you being sarcastic?
>> >
>> >Don't make the mistake of viewing Robert as a rational person.
>>
>> I had high hopes for him.
>>
>> Oops, there goes another Yoko-retard.
>
> And then of course she comes back with her standard "Objecting to my
> daily, repetitive, deranged clawing at Yoko is the same as believing
> Yoko can do wrong and that she can never, ever be criticized" crud.
>
> She should draw 10 "Fuck off, Fatty" posts for every one "Fuck off,
> Raja" post which Raja receives.
What's the point in either?
One of the things that annoys me the most about this group is when one of
Raja's lists leads to an interesting-or at least mildly diverting-discussion
about music, but I have to wade through a dozen "Fuck off, Raja," posts to
follow it.
Mack A. Damia
<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> As I mentioned before, I consider her a troll as she manages to turn
>> >> practically every conversation around to bashing Yoko.
>> >
>> >If she was a troll, she would be calculatedly doing this just to tick
>> >people off, rather than because hate for Yoko burns in her heart as the
>> >defining essence of her entire character.
>>
>> Different definitions?
>>
>> I consider someone a troll if he/she constantly causes discord and
>> problems.
>
>Yes, we have different definitions. I think the discord has to be the
>troll's central goal, rather than just a by-product of having strong
>views. I think there has to be a sense of the troll "concocting"
>opinions to cause strife. Such as when Raja exaggerates the intensity of
>his negative opinions just to draw attention. Or when we see TNMM
>pointlessly screaming "NIGGER!" wherever he can.
>
>But...Fatty has no control over her compulsive behavior. She *has* to
>thrash Yoko as often as possible, or her soul feels incomplete. I don't
>think it has anything to do with aiming to upset me, you, RichL, Marcus
>or whoever else recurrently protests that Yoko deserves fair, humane
>treatment (or even simply that she's NOT the most important component of
>Beatles history). To me, this makes Fatty not a troll but an obsessed,
>hateful lunatic. Which is why I'm still relieved that Yoko staged a
>concert in Fatty's vicinity without receiving any harm.
From what I've read, you're giving her too much credit when you say
she can't control it.
She garners a great deal of attention with her hatred, and she loves
it. She doesn't appear to have much of a life (or mind) beyond her
Yoko bashing. She's full of puffery.
Just my view.
BlackMonk
"Crisstti" <crisstti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60b36643-ed3b-4a77...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On 14 mar, 17:24, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's the principle. From my perspective, he publicly called both
> himself and Julian trash which I have trouble seeing as some kind of
> jocular father-son bonding moment. The remarks were softened in the
> context that PR posted, but actions speak louder than words.
< Exactly. >
The idea that he called himself and Julian "trash" is PJ's own
interpretation, not what John actually said.
As for actions speaking louder than words, I see someone who made some
effort to repair the relationship between himself and his son, even if it
was only remembering Julian on birthdays and Christmas. There are plenty of
children of divorce who would envy that.
TheWalrusWasDanny
> treatment
YO deserves only to subjected to a good pelt with some very off
cabbages. Fair humane treatment indeed! Humane for the rest of us
would be for her vocal cords (or is it Chords) to be hacked out with a
rusty scythe.
(or even simply that she's NOT the most important component of
> Beatles history).
Well she's up there, since it was her what split em up.
To me, this makes Fatty not a troll but an obsessed,
> hateful lunatic. Which is why I'm still relieved that Yoko staged a
> concert in Fatty's vicinity without receiving any harm.
You've just got some thing for her whatever that's about.
Danny
Crisstti
> "Crisstti" <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:60b36643-ed3b-4a77...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 mar, 17:24, PJ <palejewel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's the principle. From my perspective, he publicly called both
> > himself and Julian trash which I have trouble seeing as some kind of
> > jocular father-son bonding moment. The remarks were softened in the
> > context that PR posted, but actions speak louder than words.
>
> < Exactly. >
>
> The idea that he called himself and Julian "trash" is PJ's own
> interpretation, not what John actually said.
>
My comment was about actions and words part.
> As for actions speaking louder than words, I see someone who made some
> effort to repair the relationship between himself and his son, even if it
> was only remembering Julian on birthdays and Christmas. There are plenty of
> children of divorce who would envy that.
That there are people who are worse fathers than John (some are FAR
worse) doesn't make John a better father.
He didn't make much of an effort... not for long enough anyway.
TheWalrusWasDanny
My God I agree with you....
Danny
John Doherty
On Mar 15, 4:59 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 15, 3:40 pm, John Doherty <j...@johndoherty.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > > > with some weird, impoverished gal 8 years
> > > > > his senior who was evidently after his money,
>
> > > > Where's the "evidence" of this evident statement?
>
> > On Mar 15, 3:44 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Read May Pang's book, Fred's book, and the Norman book, to start. The
> > > Bramwell book is also helpful.
>
> > The Norman book to start I read when it came out.
>
> The Norman books discusses John's enthusiasm to marry Yoko. It
> specifically says that Yoko was reluctant at first, but was convinced
> to marry John when he told her something like, "This will be great.
> You are a talented artist and I'm rich."
>
> How do you interpret that? I think it's pretty obvious. Don't you
> see it?
What's to interpret? She had been with John for some time before they
married. People who consider marriage weigh the pros & cons. So what?
>
> The allegedly
>
> > scandalous details you cite from Pang and Bramwell don't surprise me.
>
> I'm not sure what to make of that.
It's written in plain English. I'm saying these stories which you
think will convince people to your position of unhinged hatred
inevtiably fall short. Either they are true and no surprise (John &
Yoko were both "pieces of work") or they are the jaundiced viewpoint
of someone they left by the wayside. The rest of us are not wearing
Fatts colored spectacles.
> Are you saying you don't believe them? Have you read those books?
Do we need to have this conversation twice a week?
I have read the major bios of Lennon, plus the first book by Cynthia
and about twenty other Beatle related books. On your suggestion, I
sought out Geoff Emerick's book, as one that would help "open my eyes"
about all this.
It did, especially reading the part where Emerick said "No one can
deny that Yoko had a good effect on John, or that she re-ignited his
creativity".
My eyes were opened to the fact that you are a bitter, slanderous
person who makes a life for herself slagging Yoko Ono online.
>
> > Unlike you, I accept John's ability as a legal adult to make decisions
> > about who he marries and what flows from that.
>
> Of course John was an adult and was capable of making decisions, but
> that is not the issue. John made many decisions. Some were bad ones.
Is there anyone here who disagrees with this statement? Why bother to
write something that is obvious?
The earth revolves around the sun. There, I said it! ;-)
>
>
>
> > > I don't think Cynthia encouraged John to leave.
>
> > Do you think she fought to keep him?
>
> That's not the same as encouraging him to leave.
Once again, I never said Cynthia encouraged John to leave. Why do you
distort people's statements in rebuttal?
Here's what I said:
"Cynthia said on several occasions, when she first met Yoko, she
thought she was perfect for
John-- this was the woman he had been waiting for. "
>
> However, IIRC after John threatened Cynthia with divorce, Cynthia
> tried to have a conciliatory meeting with John and brought her mother
> along.
Bringing Dot along to that was certainly a peace offering. After all,
he & Dot were pals, right?
Of course not. John hated Dot. Dot hated John.
I understand why Cynthia sought support, but it was clearly not the
best idea to bring her mother in law. Her solicitor would have been a
better idea.
> John insisted on having Yoko present which probably caused
> Cynthia a lot of emotional pain. So I would say that Cynthia did want
> to save her marriage, assuming John showed sincere interest.
You would say this, yet Cynthia never did.
Who to believe? hmmmm...
> He was
> not interested. What was Cynthia supposed to do? Beg? Throw herself
> at him? Promise to take LSD and heroin with him to make him happy?
>
>
>
> > > She knew it was
>
> > > > over and made no play to keep him.
>
> That is not the same as saying Cynthia encouraged the end of her
> marriage.
>
>
>
> > > So, John, & Cyn are off the hook,
>
> > > > but Yoko is the evil perpetrator?
>
> > > IMO, Cynthia and Julian are total innocents here. You can't see that?
>
> > Julian as a kid, totally, sure. Cynthia was an adult when John left;
> > by definition not a "total innocent". But I regard her well, and
> > enjoyed her book. She may have got bad advice from an attorney in the
> > divorce, and John certainly behaved very badly in alleging infidelity
> > etc.
>
> Yes, he did behave badly. The way he treated Cynthia in the end was
> cruel.
Lennon was often cruel throughout much of his life. He only seemed to
lose that streak after he reconciled with Yoko.
Crisstti
wrote:
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
I agree as well. What is with people being willing to waste their
time to bother and write "fuck off Raja" everytime he statrs a thread?.
Crisstti
It seems rather obvious. I don't see how she could not have been hurt
by John bringing Yoko.
>
>
>
>
> > He was
> > not interested. What was Cynthia supposed to do? Beg? Throw herself
> > at him? Promise to take LSD and heroin with him to make him happy?
>
> > > > She knew it was
>
> > > > > over and made no play to keep him.
>
> > That is not the same as saying Cynthia encouraged the end of her
> > marriage.
>
> > > > So, John, & Cyn are off the hook,
>
> > > > > but Yoko is the evil perpetrator?
>
> > > > IMO, Cynthia and Julian are total innocents here. You can't see that?
>
> > > Julian as a kid, totally, sure. Cynthia was an adult when John left;
> > > by definition not a "total innocent". But I regard her well, and
> > > enjoyed her book. She may have got bad advice from an attorney in the
> > > divorce, and John certainly behaved very badly in alleging infidelity
> > > etc.
>
> > Yes, he did behave badly. The way he treated Cynthia in the end was
> > cruel.
>
> Lennon was often cruel throughout much of his life. He only seemed to
> lose that streak after he reconciled with Yoko.
>
I don't know... he did say some rather mean things in the Playboy
interview.
>
>
>
>
> > > But John did that, not Yoko.
>
> > I agree.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -- Ocultar texto de la cita -
BlackMonk
Well, yes, it does. It means he was better than all those other fathers who
were worse than him. No one is perfect and the fact that John did try puts
him far above many. My take on it is that Julian would be much happier if he
tried to look at it from that perspective instead of always thinking of
himself as a victim, and he seems to do that a lot, not just where John is
concerned.
< He didn't make much of an effort... not for long enough anyway. >
How are you deciding that? He made as much of an effort as he was capable of
doing. Not for long? He was trying until he died.
Mack A. Damia
<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> From what I've read, you're giving her too much credit when you say
>> she can't control it.
>
>There was one day a few months back when she promised to lay off Yoko
>for one day, and the best she could manage was holding herself to
>posting multiple "I'd love to say something here, but I can't...."
>insinuations.
Pulling strings.
Mack A. Damia
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:06:00 -0700, poisoned rose
><nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>
>>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> From what I've read, you're giving her too much credit when you say
>>> she can't control it.
>>
>>There was one day a few months back when she promised to lay off Yoko
>>for one day, and the best she could manage was holding herself to
>>posting multiple "I'd love to say something here, but I can't...."
>>insinuations.
>
>Pulling strings.
(Which is to say that she's trolling for reactions)
Mack A. Damia
<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >>> From what I've read, you're giving her too much credit when you say
>> >>> she can't control it.
>> >>
>> >>There was one day a few months back when she promised to lay off Yoko
>> >>for one day, and the best she could manage was holding herself to
>> >>posting multiple "I'd love to say something here, but I can't...."
>> >>insinuations.
>> >
>> >Pulling strings.
>>
>> (Which is to say that she's trolling for reactions)
>
>I think you give her far too much credit.
LOL.
She has an immature personality - much in the same manner of a five
year-old. You must have noticed how children taunt one another - or
gingerly attempt to do stuff that they know is not appropriate.
You see, we're as much of the problem as she is by "daring" her to
bring up the subject AGAIN.
It makes sense. Best to ignore her in my opinion.
Crisstti
It doesn't make him a better father. That there are worse fathers is
irrelevant to the discussion, actually, since no one was saying that
John was the worse father or one of the worse fathers ever.
>
> < He didn't make much of an effort... not for long enough anyway. >
>
> How are you deciding that? He made as much of an effort as he was capable of
> doing.
No he didn't. Don't give him so little credit. I'm sure he was
capable of far more. In fact, the way he behaved with Sean proves it.
Not for long? He was trying until he died.
What do you call trying?. How many times did he see Julian a year?.
TheWalrusWasDanny
> Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It makes sense. Best to ignore her in my opinion.
>
> and phonies like Robert/Dahldude/F Parella/Danny/
Am I a Kook or a phoney? Or both?
Danny
abe slaney
> On Mar 14, 8:58 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 14, 5:16 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Absolutely. John was deferential to Yoko, especially in public. He
> > > should have been similarly mindful of Julian's feelings before he
> > > opened his mouth. Julian was just a teenager. John, of all people,
> > > knew what it was like to feel abandoned by his parents.-
>
> > What a lot of people don't remember (or were too young to know) is
> > that during the Sixties and early 70s, whether it be during the Bed-
> > Ins., as guests on TV, or in print interviews, people criticized John
> > for monopolizing the conversations, and not giving Yoko a chance to
> > speak.
>
> Perhaps there were people who criticized John for not letting Yoko
> speak. I don't recall that at all . . . . indeed, I recall there were
> quite a few people who thought John had lost his mind getting involved
> with that weird woman, and that he made a mistake insisting that have
> so much time to speak when most reporters and the public were not
> interested in her.
>
> In her book, May Pang describes some of John's efforts to give Yoko
> publicity whether the reporter or public wanted it or not. He was her
> biggest promoter and fan.
>
> > What Yoko-bashers don't understand is that the post-"Lost Weekend"
> > John Lennon wasn't being deferential because he feared his wife, or
> > that she had reduced him to a "pussy-whipped" husband, he was doing so
"PW"
> It's sad that so many well meaning feminists fall for that clap trap.
> No, I don't think J & Y were truly feminists (i.e. egalitarians). IMO
> Yoko dominated John. (BTW, this was noticed by Pete Shotton, Linda
> McCartney and Julian . . . . at least these were the people who said
> it publicly. )
>
> Pardon the sarcasm, but he became the Mrs. The new couple was Mr. and
> Mrs. Yoko Ono. Yoko was the Mister and John was the Mrs. How else
> can one logically describe the relationship when a man gives an
> interview and proudly tells the world, "She threw me out of the
> house." What type of crap is this? John was the wage earner in the
> house. What man "allows" his wife free access to his trmendous
> personal wealth while he is supposedly tossed out of their luxury
> apartment, with a budget of $10,000?
This paragraph is certainly telling regarding your own preconceptions
about gender roles.
I guess if somebody is abusive and controlling they are the "Mr." and
if they are weak and subservient they are the "Mrs."?
You're such a modern thinker!
> And BTW, I have a different "read" with regard to this issue of
> "The post-Lost Weekend John Lennon wasn't being deferential because
> he feared his wife, or
> that she had reduced him to a 'pussy-whipped' husband, he was doing
> so out of respect for his belief in equality of marriage partners."
> IMO John acted deferential because he truly loved Yoko, and because
> she demonstrated repeatedly that her feelings toward John were not
> nearly as strong. She could take him or leave him. Read May Pang's
> book. Read Yoko's essay which is part of the Lennon Anthology box.
> Read Yoko's Playboy interview.
"PW"
> Yoko herself said she was different from many other women in that she
> did not have a strong emotional dependence on a man and was a moving
> on kinda gal. In Yoko's case, she deeply resented John for several
> reasons . . . .she wanted to be the breadwinner in the family, she
> blamed him for her failed career, she felt it was "HIS FAULT" that the
> world considered her a "dragon lady," and he publicly humiliated her
> when he cheated on her at that post election party in 1972. Yoko had
> a history of short lived marriages before she met John, and she tended
> to move from man to man as long as her new husband could finance and/
> or promote her career.
>
> John was an emotionally damaged man given his childhood and tremendous
> use of drugs. He was needy and dependent on Yoko, and she knew it.
>
> No, the truth is, John was whipped and Yoko knew it and used that to
> her advantage. End of story.
Ugh. Asking you to just stop already or go away is clearly not going
to have the desired result, so..at the very least do the newsgroup and
humanity in general a favor and stop using the term "pussy-whipped".
You're such a modern thinker!
Mack A. Damia
<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It makes sense. Best to ignore her in my opinion.
>
>The thing is, ignoring her never works because this only means the kooks
>and phonies like Robert/Dahldude/F Parella/Danny/Donna/Topaz will
>continue giving her backrubs unopposed. And her brain's ever-busy
>information filters will spin this as "universal support."
Basically, so what?
It's only a newsgroup.
Mack A. Damia
<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>Considering how you've raged about TNMM in the past....
Yeah, I got carried away and forgot where I was.
His blantant racism surprised me in that it's puzzling why anybody
would want to reveal themselves in such a disgusting way. I had never
heard such ignorant racial hatred voiced openly in a newsgroup before.
Let's face it, his racism says more about him than it does about his
targets, and it's too bad he's sooooo fucking stupid, he can't see the
forest for the trees.
BlackMonk
You're the one criticizing him. I'm telling you that you don't have a sense
of perspective. If we're talking about how bad a father he was, it's not
irrelevant to point out what he did do that made him a better father than
some.
>>
>> < He didn't make much of an effort... not for long enough anyway. >
>>
>> How are you deciding that? He made as much of an effort as he was capable
>> of
>> doing.
>
> No he didn't. Don't give him so little credit. I'm sure he was
> capable of far more. In fact, the way he behaved with Sean proves it.
>
> Not for long? He was trying until he died.
>
> What do you call trying?. How many times did he see Julian a year?.
"Trying" is doing what he was capable of doing. There were several things in
his personalitythat prevented him from doing more; guilt, fear, maybe even
laziness. Even Julian has talked about how there were times when John didn't
know what to do around him and left it to Yoko to try to smooth things over.
He still tried. You don't seem to be able to realize how important that was,
or how often parents in his position don't try. The biggest gap isn't betwen
doing something and doing a lot, it's between doing something and doing
nothing.
Go tell someone who grew up with their father in the same city and had
absolutely no contact that John's effort wasn't enough.
Crisstti
We're talking about the fact that he was a bad father to Julian. He
just was.
>
>
>
> >> < He didn't make much of an effort... not for long enough anyway. >
>
> >> How are you deciding that? He made as much of an effort as he was capable
> >> of
> >> doing.
>
> > No he didn't. Don't give him so little credit. I'm sure he was
> > capable of far more. In fact, the way he behaved with Sean proves it.
>
> > Not for long? He was trying until he died.
>
> > What do you call trying?. How many times did he see Julian a year?.
>
> "Trying" is doing what he was capable of doing.
I'll refer to what I said above about what he was capable of doing.
There were several things in
> his personalitythat prevented him from doing more; guilt, fear, maybe even
> laziness. Even Julian has talked about how there were times when John didn't
> know what to do around him and left it to Yoko to try to smooth things over.
> He still tried. You don't seem to be able to realize how important that was,
> or how often parents in his position don't try. The biggest gap isn't betwen
> doing something and doing a lot, it's between doing something and doing
> nothing.
...No, I don't really think so.
>
> Go tell someone who grew up with their father in the same city and had
> absolutely no contact that John's effort wasn't enough.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Go tell Julian or anyone in a similar position that John's effort was
enough.
abe slaney
> On 15 mar, 16:23, Crisstti <crissttigalda...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 mar, 02:33, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 14, 8:58 pm, marcus <marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mar 14, 5:16 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Absolutely. John was deferential to Yoko, especially in public. He
> > > > > should have been similarly mindful of Julian's feelings before he
> > > > > opened his mouth. Julian was just a teenager. John, of all people,
> > > > > knew what it was like to feel abandoned by his parents.-
>
> > > > What a lot of people don't remember (or were too young to know) is
> > > > that during the Sixties and early 70s, whether it be during the Bed-
> > > > Ins., as guests on TV, or in print interviews, people criticized John
> > > > for monopolizing the conversations, and not giving Yoko a chance to
> > > > speak.
>
> > > Perhaps there were people who criticized John for not letting Yoko
> > > speak. I don't recall that at all . . . . indeed, I recall there were
> > > quite a few people who thought John had lost his mind getting involved
> > > with that weird woman, and that he made a mistake insisting that have
> > > so much time to speak when most reporters and the public were not
> > > interested in her.
>
> > > In her book, May Pang describes some of John's efforts to give Yoko
> > > publicity whether the reporter or public wanted it or not. He was her
> > > biggest promoter and fan.
>
> > > > What Yoko-bashers don't understand is that the post-"Lost Weekend"
> > > > John Lennon wasn't being deferential because he feared his wife, or
> > > > that she had reduced him to a "pussy-whipped" husband, he was doing so
>
> > > It's sad that so many well meaning feminists fall for that clap trap.
> > > No, I don't think J & Y were truly feminists (i.e. egalitarians). IMO
> > > Yoko dominated John. (BTW, this was noticed by Pete Shotton, Linda
> > > McCartney and Julian . . . . at least these were the people who said
> > > it publicly. )
>
> > > Pardon the sarcasm, but he became the Mrs. The new couple was Mr. and
> > > Mrs. Yoko Ono. Yoko was the Mister and John was the Mrs. How else
> > > can one logically describe the relationship when a man gives an
> > > interview and proudly tells the world, "She threw me out of the
> > > house." What type of crap is this? John was the wage earner in the
> > > house. What man "allows" his wife free access to his trmendous
> > > personal wealth while he is supposedly tossed out of their luxury
> > > John and May had to live hand to mouth, sponging off friends, while
> > > Yoko was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not more)
> > > living in luxury, making records that no one would buy, going on tour,
> > > etc., etc.?
>
> > > which
>
> > > > he arrived at, admittedly, through an oft-traveled crooked path with
> > > > bumps along the way, but an equality p.o.v. nonetheless.
>
> > > That was not equality. No, their relationship was female chauvinism.
>
> > > And BTW, I have a different "read" with regard to this issue of
> > > "The post-Lost Weekend John Lennon wasn't being deferential because
> > > he feared his wife, or
> > > that she had reduced him to a 'pussy-whipped' husband, he was doing
> > > so out of respect for his belief in equality of marriage partners."
> > > IMO John acted deferential because he truly loved Yoko, and because
> > > she demonstrated repeatedly that her feelings toward John were not
> > > nearly as strong. She could take him or leave him. Read May Pang's
> > > book. Read Yoko's essay which is part of the Lennon Anthology box.
> > > Read Yoko's Playboy interview.
>
> > > did not have a strong emotional dependence on a man and was a moving
> > > on kinda gal. In Yoko's case, she deeply resented John for several
> > > reasons . . . .she wanted to be the breadwinner in the family, she
> > > blamed him for her failed career, she felt it was "HIS FAULT" that the
> > > world considered her a "dragon lady," and he publicly humiliated her
> > > when he cheated on her at that post election party in 1972. Yoko had
> > > a history of short lived marriages before she met John, and she tended
> > > to move from man to man as long as her new husband could finance and/
> > > or promote her career.
>
> > > use of drugs. He was needy and dependent on Yoko, and she knew it.
>
> > > No, the truth is, John was whipped and Yoko knew it and used that to
> > > her advantage. End of story.
>
> > some reference to that in the Playboy interview... will look it up.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
>
>
> LENNON: Well, sometimes, you know, she'd come home and say, "I'm
> tired." I'd say, only partly tongue in cheek, "What the fuck do you
> think I am? I'm 24 hours with the baby! Do you think that's easy?" I'd
> say, "You're going to take some more interest in the child." I don't
> care whether it's a father or a mother. When I'm going on about
> pimples and bones and which TV shows to let him watch, I would say,
> "Listen, this is important. I don't want to hear about your
> $20,000,000 deal tonight!" [To Yoko] I would like both parents to take
> care of the children, but how is a different matter."
>
> http://www.john-lennon.com/playboyinterviewwithjohnlennonandyokoono.htm
How exactly is this different from how-many-millions of marriages in
recent history, but with the roles reversed?
<whoosh>
What do you think he was saying all those years?
RichL
"Mack A. Damia" <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jdntp5ldo4inn6i3k...@4ax.com...
My guess is that TNMM is playing a character -- calculatingly exaggerating
his views in an attempt to get predictable (to him) "knee-jerk" reactions
from "liberals".
RichL
> Basically, the only way left to save this newsgroup
> is to bring in more crossposts from other groups which have higher
> concentrations of real music fans. But the potentially worthwhile
> spinoff discussions from Raja's list-barfings trickle out quickly,
> because so many people just delete his threads on sight.
Are there really such newsgroups? (Don't give me the Dylan group, I lurked
there for some time, and it has it's share of deluded/dysfunctional/demented
posters too.) Judging by participation from the groups that Raja crossposts
to, RMB looks like an oasis of relative sanity. The vast majority of "FOR"
posts in Raja's threads come from outside this group.
>
> I killfiled that "bubba" person awhile back.
There are a number of folks from outside RMB who chime in on Rajathreads
that I've killfiled, Amy/bubba being among them.
abe slaney
> I could go on and on, but you get the drift.
Very witty! Well done! How droll!
abe slaney
> The Norman books discusses John's enthusiasm to marry Yoko. It
> specifically says that Yoko was reluctant at first, but was convinced
> to marry John when he told her something like, "This will be great.
> You are a talented artist and I'm rich."
>
> How do you interpret that? I think it's pretty obvious. Don't you
> see it?
Got it. So John had to *inform* her, or "remind" her that he was rich
and she a talented artist before she came around to accepting his
proposal... Kind of blows your "Yoko stalked him because he was rich
and she saw herself as a worthy genius" theory to shit, doesn't it?
But not to worry, you'll find some way to wiggle out of this one, too.
Hey, when all else fails - paraphrase a quote!
abe slaney
wrote:
> I am constantly amazed at just how sane and right on Fatts is with her
> observations about the late great Lennon and his wife.
Oy vey.
Mack A. Damia
<nur...@ward-duty.com> wrote:
>"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> My guess is that TNMM is playing a character -- calculatingly exaggerating
>> his views in an attempt to get predictable (to him) "knee-jerk" reactions
>> from "liberals".
>
>That's what I've always said too. Which, to me, marks the difference
>between him (troll) and Fatty (oblivious lunatic).
I don't think he's exaggerating.
The anonymity of the Internet allows him to speak his mind; that is,
to voice what he cannot say to others face-to-face.
His views are very common in the South, too, especially among the
working-class/blue-collar crowd.