FRED SEAMAN RE: SAM HAVADTOY
leechboy
stories"...all you have to define your meagre existence. Be gone you worthless
waste of earth's space..................
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Sam Havadtoy moved in with Yoko at the Dakota in mid-December, 198O -- a week
> after John's death. He had been "dating" Yoko for about two months (while
> John was still alive). There was much speculation in Yoko's inner circle
> about the nature of Yoko & Havadtoy's relationship, given the fact that
> Havadtoy was gay. In 198O Havadtoy's boyfriend, Luciano Sparacino, became
> Yoko's fashion stylist & hair/makeup man. In the summer of 198O, while John
> & I were in Bermuda, Yoko had several threesomes with Sam & Luciano (the
> sordid details are described in a manuscript that Luciano wrote in 1981).
> After Havadtoy moved into the Dakota, he invited his mother to visit from
> Hungary. Sam's mother moved into apartment 4 at the Dakota & cooked home-made
> meals for her son & Yoko. In August, 1981, Yoko & Havadtoy went to Hungary &
> got married. They planned to announce the wedding, but Yoko's publicist,
> Elliot Mintz, talked them out of it. He pointed out that John's fans would
> disapprove of the fact tbat Yoko had re-married. Mintz feared a backlash from
> Lennon fans. Indeed, Yoko had become a professional "grieving widow" (a role
> that she plays to this very day) & it isn't in her best interest to admit
> that she's married to Havadtoy.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
na
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7ad6n3$rne$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
Danny Caccavo
I'd rather know this than what Yoko told us about the election night in '72...
DC
--
Danny Caccavo
"Where's Elvis?"
na
Danny Caccavo wrote in message ...
ok enjoy...:)
Amaranth56
>You don't have a clue you fucking thief! You're a convicted felon living
>on "old
>stories"...all you have to define your meagre existence. Be gone you
>worthless waste of earth's space..................
First of all, if Sam Havadtoy moved in with Yoko in mid-December, 1980, Fred
Seaman was THERE. I'd say he had more than "a clue."
Secondly, as far as Fred being a convicted felon, perhaps you should read what
Jack Douglas has to say in the latest Beatlefan. It's just not that simple.
wmulholland
> >You don't have a clue you fucking thief! You're a convicted felon living
> >on "old
> >stories"...all you have to define your meagre existence. Be gone you
> >worthless waste of earth's space..................
ah, I remember my first half pint of beer too :0)
na
cee...@pacbell.net
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Sam Havadtoy moved in with Yoko at the Dakota in mid-December, 198O -- a week
> after John's death. He had been "dating" Yoko for about two months (while
> John was still alive). There was much speculation in Yoko's inner
circle
> about the nature of Yoko & Havadtoy's relationship, given the fact that
> Havadtoy was gay. In 198O Havadtoy's boyfriend, Luciano Sparacino, became
> Yoko's fashion stylist & hair/makeup man. In the summer of 198O, while John
> & I were in Bermuda, Yoko had several threesomes with Sam & Luciano (the
> sordid details are described in a manuscript that Luciano wrote in 1981).
> After Havadtoy moved into the Dakota, he invited his mother to visit from
> Hungary. Sam's mother moved into apartment 4 at the Dakota & cooked home-made
> meals for her son & Yoko. In August, 1981, Yoko & Havadtoy went to Hungary &
> got married. They planned to announce the wedding, but Yoko's publicist,
> Elliot Mintz, talked them out of it. He pointed out that John's fans would
> disapprove of the fact tbat Yoko had re-married. Mintz feared a backlash from
> Lennon fans. Indeed, Yoko had become a professional "grieving widow" (a role
> that she plays to this very day) & it isn't in her best interest to admit
> that she's married to Havadtoy.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Sounds like a load of crap to me!
We would have heard about this LONG before now if there were any truth to it.
Hey-Fred-or whoever you REALLY are-go back to grave robbing, at least we dont
have to listen to you.
Mystic Seven
<wmulh...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>leechboy wrote....
>
>> >You don't have a clue you fucking thief! You're a convicted felon living
>> >on "old
>> >stories"...all you have to define your meagre existence. Be gone you
>> >worthless waste of earth's space..................
>
>ah, I remember my first half pint of beer too :0)
Must not have been very good ;-)
M7
"It's not the T.V. that's broken, it's the quality of
the programs you watch which gives that impression..."
J.H.
wmulholland
> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:37:02 +0000, wmulholland
> <wmulh...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> >leechboy wrote....
> >
> >> >You don't have a clue you fucking thief! You're a convicted felon living
> >> >on "old
> >> >stories"...all you have to define your meagre existence. Be gone you
> >> >worthless waste of earth's space..................
> >
> >ah, I remember my first half pint of beer too :0)
>
> Must not have been very good ;-)
> M7
LOL a half pint and I was gone......bluttered as we say here :0)
PS - didn't John have the same prob ie a pint or two and he was drunk?
JSeraf7064
What the hell do you come here for, and why didn't you stop reading if you
didn't want to know it?
"The truth shall set us free".
Is it the truth?
-JS
JSeraf7064
Jack Douglas has to say in the latest Beatlefan. It's just not that simple.
I wish I could!!!
I wish someone would post this article, as I can't find the mag.
-JS
Tom
>btw, when did Y become a beatle?
>
She wore a scarab in a previous life, does that count?
na
JSeraf7064 wrote in message <19990217183435...@ng18.aol.com>...
>>why do we need to know this, even if it is true?
>
>What the hell do you come here for, and why didn't you stop reading if you
>didn't want to know it?
well i come here for fun and fabs.
and i read it in the hope it might be pertinant seeing as this guy purports
to be the real deal.
at least i dont spew rudeness and vitriol at him like some here have seen
fit to do..
>"The truth shall set us free".
yeah yeah and "first it will piss you off"...i know i know..
who says it's the truth anyway?
sounds like people magazine fodder to me.
the thought of yoko having a threesome with some gay guy and his lover may
have a major part to play in our appreciation of all things fab, but
somehow, i dont think so.
and btw, no need to pick on me mate.
there's plenty of other piranha nibbling away at you, you know........::)
na
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
"na" <.> wrote:
>
position to share with all of you some of the things he knows. if you know
anything pertinent about either J or Y or any of the other Beatles i would be
willing to hear about it.
elsa
> elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7ad6n3$rne$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
cee...@pacbell.net wrote:
> In article <7ad6n3$rne$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> We would have heard about this LONG before now if there were any truth to it.
>
> Hey-Fred-or whoever you REALLY are-go back to grave robbing, at least we dont
> have to listen to you.
>
Do you really believe that you would have heard this before? Who do you think
would have told you? Grave robbing, what the hell does that mean? You are
right about one thing, you do not have to listen to anyone you don't want to.
You might read other things you don't want to know about so maybe you should
stop reading rmb. elsa
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
leechboy <hatespam@it's.net> wrote:
> You don't have a clue you fucking thief! You're a convicted felon living on
"old
> stories"...all you have to define your meagre existence. Be gone you worthless
> waste of earth's space..................
>
all, doesn't it?
na
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7afo2h$30r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <newscache$lz0a7f$j0c@niton>,
> "na" <.> wrote:
>> why do we need to know this, even if it is true?
>>
> why not? do you only want to know the "nice" stuff. Fred happens to be in
a
>position to share with all of you some of the things he knows. if you know
>anything pertinent about either J or Y or any of the other Beatles i would
be
>willing to hear about it.
>
>elsa
i was not dismissive of fred's knowledge nor was i rude.
and i realise many ppl are interested in those sort of rumours.
good luck to them.
i happen not to be interested in rumours. regardless of the alleged source.
and yes i can share some pertinant beatles information with you.
here you go:
they were a band that changed the world with their music.
they did not become famous or well loved by talking about who screwed who or
who said what to whom.
anything to add there?
if you would like to discuss their music and the factors that affected them,
then i would be interested and happy to hear your opinions and viewpoints.
unsolicited personal attacks or swipes are just not my bag, especially when
those being discussed are not in the position to defend themsleves. is that
ok with you?
as to what purpose those sort of posts could possibly serve is also beyond
me, save for the impression it gives me of ppl seeking to further themselves
though their associations with famous ppl.
ta
n
na
>anything pertinent about either J or Y or any of the other Beatles i would
be
>willing to hear about it.
>
>elsa
RasMaster
In article <newscache$ydtb7f$wo1@niton>, "na" <n...@accsoft.comm.au> writes:
>as to what purpose those sort of posts could possibly serve is also beyond
>me, save for the impression it gives me of ppl seeking to further themselves
>though their associations with famous ppl.
Amen to that.
We need to give people the benefit of the doubt. I have no reason to think
John had questionable intentions, or that Yoko did. I've not met them, nor
have I read anything supportable from them or about them that indicates such a
thing. Mr. Seaman's intentions, on the other hand, have been sufficiently
questioned in courts of law and elsewhere, to the point that I'm not inclined
to believe him or care a whit what he has to say. He has thrown away the
ability to be given the benefit of the doubt, in this area, due to his illegal
behavior (directly related, as that behavior is, to this subject). Beyond that,
he has an agenda, just as everyone does,
and if it includes spreading dirt on others, which it appears to (to me), I'm
really
not interested.
Really, what is the point of writing a post, which, as far as I can tell, was
not in response to anyone's question, simply to share a bit of history,
absolutely uncorroborated, from the private life of a woman, any woman?
Just to share? Come on. Gosh, I know some stuff about two or three
famous recording acts, too, which I can substantiate, due to a family
member who has toured with a few big names. But you know what?
I keep it to myself. I might tell a few friends, in private, if it's funny,
rather than embarrasing. But publically? I DON'T DO IT! There is no need, nor
is there sufficient rationale.
The breaking of whatever trust there was between employer and employee
(during the relationship before John's death) cannot be justified, in my
opinion. Even when one is fired under bad or questionable terms, one
keeps quiet about what one knows (unless, perhaps, there is some illegal
behavior going on). One does not "kiss and tell". That's how I see it.
And anyway, what difference does it make if people have a better impression of
Yoko than YOU do, or than you think they should? How about this: You hold your
opinion, and know what you think you know, and let us think what we think. And
leave the discussion to issues of their public lives.
I find this disgusting.
Bob Purse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"As long as you're singing, there's no such thing as a wrong note" - Pete
Seeger, live in Chicago, 1/29/99.
na
RasMaster wrote in message <19990217231634...@ngol06.aol.com>...
fukin eh!
i just find it totally transparent that this guy decides to spam the group
with some rumour mongering stuff that he decides he has the right to start
spreading.
i remember when that yoko stuff was released on the jl anthology and that
started some discussion here along these lines. and the prevailing
sentiment was that those sort of "details" serve no one but those who seek
to use them for their own furtherment. in that case, the arrows were
pointed directly towards yoko, with a lot of pll here fairly losing their
nuts and shouting out all sorts of obscenities aimed at her.
and this guy spams us with that crud and it's supposed to be important?
gimme a break.
and as for his friend who chimes in and gives us her two bits worth about
how its "the truth" and its virtually "straight from the hand of god"..
we'll, given that i am assuming she is a female, i'll not write what i would
normally suggest someone do with a high handed attitude like that but i'm
sure you could make a guess or two.
bah!
Tom
>I'd rather know this than what Yoko told us about the election night in
'72...
>
Dirt about Yoko is more important than dirt about John?
Mystic Seven
<wmulh...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>Mystic Seven wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999 11:37:02 +0000, wmulholland
>> <wmulh...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>>
>> >leechboy wrote....
>> >
>> >> >You don't have a clue you fucking thief! You're a convicted felon living
>> >> >on "old
>> >> >stories"...all you have to define your meagre existence. Be gone you
>> >> >worthless waste of earth's space..................
>> >
>> >ah, I remember my first half pint of beer too :0)
>>
>> Must not have been very good ;-)
>> M7
>
>LOL a half pint and I was gone......bluttered as we say here :0)
>
>PS - didn't John have the same prob ie a pint or two and he was drunk?
>
I think it was a pint or two and he was charming, witty and every
other smarmy adjective Elliot Mintz could think of, after that he
turned into a raving asshole.
CaroJ11
> Why not? do you only want to know the "nice" stuff. Fred happens to be in a
>position to share with all of you some of the things he knows. if you know
>anything pertinent about either J or Y or any of the other Beatles i would be
Elsa, I fear all the hoopla you're getting is another case of "Truth? You can't
handle the truth!"
I, one of many, are quite interested in learning Yoko may have been remarried
all these years. The entire news media would be very interested in learning
this! However, before we can alert said media to the "fraud" the dear grieving
widow may have fostered on the public, we do need unquestionable verification
from Hungarian marriage records. I admit I've searched, but without knowing the
language I'm at a loss. Any of our European posters able to substantiate this
with documentation?---CarolJ
Jim
CaroJ11 <car...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990218094619...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
> I, one of many, are quite interested in learning Yoko may have been
remarried
> all these years. The entire news media would be very interested in
learning
> this! However, before we can alert said media to the "fraud" the dear
grieving
> widow may have fostered on the public, we do need unquestionable
verification
> from Hungarian marriage records. I admit I've searched, but without
knowing the
> language I'm at a loss. Any of our European posters able to substantiate
this
> with documentation?---CarolJ
I aren't.
-- Jim
===>A taste is a wearable thing to mind <===
cee...@pacbell.net
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
Garbage snipped
> > Sounds like a load of crap to me!
> >
> > We would have heard about this LONG before now if there were any truth to
it.
> >
> > Hey-Fred-or whoever you REALLY are-go back to grave robbing, at least we
dont
> > have to listen to you.
> >
>
> Do you really believe that you would have heard this before? Who do you think
> would have told you? Grave robbing, what the hell does that mean? You are
> right about one thing, you do not have to listen to anyone you don't want to.
> You might read other things you don't want to know about so maybe you should
> stop reading rmb. elsa
>
You know very well what I mean by grave robbing.
And yes, this would have been heard before.
IF you really are Fred Seaman you are pissed off and spewing nonsense.
Go back to grave robbing-it suits you
cee...@pacbell.net
car...@aol.com (CaroJ11) wrote:
>
> > Why not? do you only want to know the "nice" stuff. Fred happens to be in a
> >position to share with all of you some of the things he knows. if you know
> >anything pertinent about either J or Y or any of the other Beatles i would be
> >willing to hear about it.<<Elsa
>
> Elsa, I fear all the hoopla you're getting is another case of "Truth? You
can't
> handle the truth!"
>
> all these years. The entire news media would be very interested in learning
> this! However, before we can alert said media to the "fraud" the dear grieving
> widow may have fostered on the public, we do need unquestionable verification
> from Hungarian marriage records. I admit I've searched, but without knowing
the
> language I'm at a loss. Any of our European posters able to substantiate this
> with documentation?---CarolJ
>
>
I seriously doubt that "Elsa" will respond to this.
As usual, when facts are requested we are greeted with complete silence.
Laura
>>convicted felon, perhaps you should
>>just not that simple.
>I wish I could!!!
>I wish someone would post this
>article, as I can't find the mag.
>-JS
ME TOO!, uh, and me neither (isn't it subscription only?) -laura
Mystic Seven
>
>CaroJ11 <car...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19990218094619...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
>> I, one of many, are quite interested in learning Yoko may have been
>remarried
>> all these years. The entire news media would be very interested in
>learning
>> this! However, before we can alert said media to the "fraud" the dear
>grieving
>> widow may have fostered on the public, we do need unquestionable
>verification
>> from Hungarian marriage records. I admit I've searched, but without
>knowing the
>> language I'm at a loss. Any of our European posters able to substantiate
>this
>> with documentation?---CarolJ
>
>I aren't.
>
>-- Jim
I like lollipops.
tup...@seaside.net
No, but probably a whole lot easier to take in if your're a Lennon worshiper.
wmulholland
> In article <7ag6ub$6md$1...@remarQ.com>,
> "Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I'd rather know this than what Yoko told us about the election night in
> > '72...
> > >
> > Dirt about Yoko is more important than dirt about John?
> >
> >
>
> No, but probably a whole lot easier to take in if your're a Lennon worshiper.
Sadly that is the truth for many who claim to admire John. They love to hear
'dirt' on the lady he loved.
Gee, with some 'fans' like that, who would need enemies? *resigned shrug of
shoulders and a pout*
LadyChong
..right on. Yoko's personal life is none of my business....I could care
less.....
-Meg
"hey babe, take a walk on the wild side"-Lou Reed
-----------------
The Beatles Domain--http://www.angelfire.com/ne/LennonsGal/index.html
The Birds, The Bees, and The
Monkees--http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/portishead/813/
----------------
Susan A. Juliano
> I want the truth. I don't care if it comes from Goldman, Seaman, Cynthia
> Lennon, Martin, Evans, Paul McCartney, or whoever. The falsehoods, fantasies,
> misconceptions and manufactured public images do me no good.
Gee, I hope you're not a big McCartney fan. It would be very hard on
you.
Danny Caccavo
> >I'd rather know this than what Yoko told us about the election night in
> '72...
> >
> Dirt about Yoko is more important than dirt about John?
Not really, but it's a lot more satisfying...<g>
DC
--
Danny Caccavo
"Where's Elvis?"
Danny Caccavo
rasm...@aol.com (RasMaster) wrote:
> In article <19990218094619...@ng-cc1.aol.com>, car...@aol.com
> (CaroJ11) writes:
>
> >I, one of many, are quite interested in learning Yoko may have been remarried
> >all these years.
>
> Am you now?
>
> Good heavens, why?
>
> Do you also care if Randy Newman's ex-wife is married? How about Brian
> Wilson's ex-wife, hmm?
>
> How about Marlon Brando? Is he married.
>
> What difference does it make?
>
> Bob Purse
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
Well, it sells a lot of papers. I mean, I *try* to turn my head away when
I pass an accident, but it's *really* difficult to.....
Danny Caccavo
> JSeraf7064 wrote in message
> <19990218203631...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
> >>, i'll not write what i would normally suggest someone do with a high
> handed
> >attitude like that but i'm
> >>sure you could make a guess or two.
> >>bah!
> >
> >And, apparently it's the source of your anger too.
> >
> >-JS
>
>
> since when is the pursuit of gossip the same as the quest for truth?
> i mean, if you want to get into that stuff, that's fine and all. please do.
> enjoy.
> but please don't try to justify it as valid fabs discussion.
> it is not.
>
> p.s. i'm not angry.
> :)
Hey, it's gossip, and to a certain point, I enjoy it. I'm not particularly
proud that I do, but hey....
Getting to the truth is sorta bullshit. Can't really happen.
Danny Caccavo
> You know very well what I mean by grave robbing.
> And yes, this would have been heard before.
> IF you really are Fred Seaman you are pissed off and spewing nonsense.
> Go back to grave robbing-it suits you
> >
I gotta say, I don't think I'd dismiss what Fred says out of hand. I was
working with Jack Douglas the year after John died, and Yoko had already
started the campaign against him. After what Jack went through, I could
find reason to suspect that Yoko mounted a campaign to discredit Fred.
antonius
Danny Caccavo wrote in message ...
I have to agree Danny. Now I'm a fan of Yoko's early music. I especially
like her work on her first album. I can appreciate her as an artist and yet
not think highly of her as a person.
I intuitively feel that Fred Seaman is telling the truth. I've been swayed
to the other side at times, but there's clearly something there. I also
think Julian has gotten a very raw deal out of all this.
Yoko has considerable power and the public tend to put people like her on a
pedestal and dismiss any wrongdoing she might engage in. I don't think she
was justified in how she handled Seaman or Julian. If she has committed an
injustice it should be brought to light regardless of who she is and how
much power and money she has.
As with most public figures, they are complex, and one may never get the
full truth, but it's important to know things about them for history's sake
in regards to their character and how one interprets their role in history.
Yoko will forever be known as the loyal widow of John Lennon. Now, if she
had been involved with another man prior to John's death-that is important
knowledge for people to know so they can shine a more accurate light on who
she was and judge accordingly.
I think Yoko will be rightly considered a pioneer of experimental music and
a major contributor to the origins of punk music. She will also be
considered an overall positive creative force in John's life, as she should
be, but I agree with others that the more insight we have into her character
the better. Myths are nice and comforting, but they're not fair to those
who suffer in their creation: Julian, Seaman or others who may not be
remembered years hence for much of anything, but nevertheless are deserving
of fair treatment simply because they are human beings.
Praise Yoko indeed, but if she's been unfair and cruel to people who do not
have the money or power to defend themselves then turn on those spotlights
and let's have justice and truth.
Tony
RasMaster
>I, one of many, are quite interested in learning Yoko may have been remarried
>all these years.
Am you now?
Good heavens, why?
Do you also care if Randy Newman's ex-wife is married? How about Brian
Wilson's ex-wife, hmm?
How about Marlon Brando? Is he married.
What difference does it make?
Bob Purse
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"As long as you're singing, there's no such thing as a wrong note" - Pete
JSeraf7064
>Do you also care if Randy Newman's ex-wife is married? How about Brian
>Wilson's ex-wife, hmm? How about Marlon Brando? Is he married.
>What difference does it make?
>Bob Purse
We come here to discuss and learn about the Beatles.
Don't think that I haven't noticed that any time someone posts something to
dispell your (meaning 'your' collectively) JohnAndYoko myths, you go running
for cover with your "I don't care to hear it!!!!" speech.
I want to know about John and Yoko's dedication and love for one another if
that is the truth.
I want to know Yoko's boyfriend moved in within a week if that is the truth.
I want the truth. I don't care if it comes from Goldman, Seaman, Cynthia
Lennon, Martin, Evans, Paul McCartney, or whoever. The falsehoods, fantasies,
misconceptions and manufactured public images do me no good.
-JS
JSeraf7064
>
>Bob Purse
>
I wonder, if you would find it disgusting if Elliot Mintz came here and posted
his story about John and Yoko's personal life.
I doubt it.
What you object to, and the reason why you reject the source is simply because
you don't want your myths dispelled.
This has nothing to do with whether this info is true or not... simply that you
are so quick to dismiss it at your convenience... true or not.
-JS
JSeraf7064
na
JSeraf7064 wrote in message
<19990218202704...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
>We come here to discuss and learn about the Beatles.
yes.
>I want to know about John and Yoko's dedication and love for one another if
>that is the truth.
yes.
>I want to know Yoko's boyfriend moved in within a week if that is the
truth.
no.
that had precious lttle to do with the beatles but.
that stuff is pure oprah .
>I want the truth. I don't care if it comes from Goldman, Seaman, Cynthia
>Lennon, Martin, Evans, Paul McCartney, or whoever. The falsehoods,
fantasies,
>misconceptions and manufactured public images do me no good.
truth shmuth.
it's all gossip mate.
how can you equate some out-of-left-field post about someone's personal
lives as "the truth", especially while trying to justify it in the name of
fabs scholarship.
i dunno, i know you are alway seeking the bottom line and thats cool and
all, given the amount of argy bargy that gets flung around, but on this
occasion, it's irrelevant, in my view at least.
it's gossip column stuff.
fuck all to do with anything beatles.
n
na
wmulholland
> >Am you now? Good heavens, why?
> >Do you also care if Randy Newman's ex-wife is married? How about Brian
> >Wilson's ex-wife, hmm? How about Marlon Brando? Is he married.
> >What difference does it make?
> >Bob Purse
>
> We come here to discuss and learn about the Beatles.
>
> Don't think that I haven't noticed that any time someone posts something to
> dispell your (meaning 'your' collectively) JohnAndYoko myths, you go running
> for cover with your "I don't care to hear it!!!!" speech.
>
> I want to know about John and Yoko's dedication and love for one another if
> that is the truth.
>
a Jack Nicholson movie quote comes to mind here ;0)
>
> I want to know Yoko's boyfriend moved in within a week if that is the truth.
>
> I want the truth. I don't care if it comes from Goldman, Seaman, Cynthia
> Lennon, Martin, Evans, Paul McCartney, or whoever. The falsehoods, fantasies,
> misconceptions and manufactured public images do me no good.
>
Your final sentence says it all.
Personally, I can't read things from say Goldman and really take them on board.
Some folks analysis of events are rather flawed shall we say. We all have our
weaknesses......why magnify those to the detriment of the good points?
RasMaster
In article <newscache$lpod7f$ghi@niton>, "na" <n...@accsoft.comm.au> writes:
>
>JSeraf7064 wrote in message
><19990218202704...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
>
>>We come here to discuss and learn about the Beatles.
>
>yes.
>>I want to know about John and Yoko's dedication and love for one another if
>>that is the truth.
>yes.
>>I want to know Yoko's boyfriend moved in within a week if that is the
>truth.
>
>no.
>that had precious lttle to do with the beatles but.
>that stuff is pure oprah .
>
'zactly correct, sir. We have no "need" to know who Yoko is living or married
to. It's her personal business.
>
>>I want the truth. I don't care if it comes from Goldman, Seaman, Cynthia
>>Lennon, Martin, Evans, Paul McCartney, or whoever. The falsehoods,
>fantasies,
>>misconceptions and manufactured public images do me no good.
>
>truth shmuth.
>it's all gossip mate.
Yep. More correctness, sir. One might also point out that "The falsehoods,
fantasies, misconceptions and manufactured public images" (assuming
they are there) do none of us any conceivable harm, either. No one here
will die, become ill, have a car crash, lose their hearing or have their
president impeached over a personal issue because Yoko wants to
present her life a certain way. And there really is absolutely no reason
why we should be entitled to know thing that she chooses to keep quiet.
And if she's lied to us, which is certainly a possibility, so what? She owes
us nothing. Paul owes us nothing. John owed us nothing.
>how can you equate some out-of-left-field post about someone's personal
>lives as "the truth", especially while trying to justify it in the name of
>fabs scholarship.
Same mindset that led to the recent impeachment: that public people's
private lives are somehow our business, and that we can somehow "know"
the reasons and motivations for the behaviors of strangers. Neither of
these concepts holds any water.
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
> didn't want to know it?
>
> "The truth shall set us free".
>
> Is it the truth?
>
> -JS
>
>
Yes it is the truth
elsa
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
"na" <.> wrote:
>
> elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7afo2h$30r$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > if you know
> >anything pertinent about either J or Y or any of the other Beatles i would
> be
> >willing to hear about it.
> >
>
> btw, when did Y become a beatle?
>
>
Good point!
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
car...@aol.com (CaroJ11) wrote:
>
> > Why not? do you only want to know the "nice" stuff. Fred happens to be in a
> >anything pertinent about either J or Y or any of the other Beatles i would be
>
> Elsa, I fear all the hoopla you're getting is another case of "Truth? You
can't
> handle the truth!"
>
> this! However, before we can alert said media to the "fraud" the dear grieving
> widow may have fostered on the public, we do need unquestionable verification
> from Hungarian marriage records. I admit I've searched, but without knowing
the
> language I'm at a loss. Any of our European posters able to substantiate this
> with documentation?---CarolJ
>
>
Can't help you there. Fred seems quite sure that a wedding took place because
that appeared to be the plan. Obviously, one would not want to bet one's life
on whether or not the wedding actually took place or not. As far as alerting
the media. Who cares about that? The point in all of this is that whether
they got married or not, Yoko was involved with someone before John died, and
this man moved in shortly after John's death, and is there still. This would
be boring except for the fact that Yoko has been playing the grieving widow
role forever and has never been upfront about a relationship that has lasted
longer than the one she had with J.
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
> elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
>
> Garbage snipped
>
> > > Sounds like a load of crap to me!
> > >
> > > We would have heard about this LONG before now if there were any truth to
> it.
> > >
> > > Hey-Fred-or whoever you REALLY are-go back to grave robbing, at least we
> dont
> > > have to listen to you.
> > >
> >
> > Do you really believe that you would have heard this before? Who do you
think
> > would have told you? Grave robbing, what the hell does that mean? You are
> > right about one thing, you do not have to listen to anyone you don't want
to.
> > You might read other things you don't want to know about so maybe you should
> > stop reading rmb. elsa
> >
>
> And yes, this would have been heard before.
> IF you really are Fred Seaman you are pissed off and spewing nonsense.
> Go back to grave robbing-it suits you
> >
No I'm not Fred. But, I am pissed off because I don't like it when morons
malign my friends. What's your excuse?
na
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7aiqjr$og9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <19990217183435...@ng18.aol.com>,
> jsera...@aol.com (JSeraf7064) wrote:
>> >why do we need to know this, even if it is true?
>>
>> What the hell do you come here for, and why didn't you stop reading if
you
>> didn't want to know it?
>>
>> "The truth shall set us free".
>>
>> Is it the truth?
>>
>> -JS
>>
>>
>Yes it is the truth
>
>elsa
sure, if you say so.
but then, going by your post, yoko is a beatle too, eh?
na
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7airkj$pah$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Can't help you there. Fred seems quite sure that a wedding took place
because
>that appeared to be the plan.
great logic.. "fred seems quite certain" .."that appeared to be the
plan"..hahahaha...
this is a joke, right?
>Obviously, one would not want to bet one's life
>on whether or not the wedding actually took place or not. As far as
alerting
>the media. Who cares about that?
perhaps because the media might just find out the truth(about what, im not
certain) and after all, and we wouldn't want that would we.?
> This would
>be boring except for the fact that Yoko has been playing the grieving
widow
>role forever and has never been upfront about a relationship that has
lasted
>longer than the one she had with J.
>
and the beatles connection here is?
this is the most ridiculous, blatant rumour mongering bunch of stuff i have
ever heard.(well not ever, but its close)
not that it did or didn't happen.
john and yoko are not gods to me, merely ppl.
i for one truly couldn't care less about ppl's sexual proclivities.
but the fact that you guys spam us about some personal details and then get
all hoity-toity, ranting and raving about "the truth setting you free" and a
whole lot of bunkum about who "fred seems to think that's what had to happen
because he feels that was the apparent plan".."one wouldn't want to bet
one's life".
i mean seriously... your kidding right?
i feel embarassed for you.
sheesh.
na
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7ais8k$pps$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>No I'm not Fred. But, I am pissed off because I don't like it when morons
>malign my friends. What's your excuse?
such righteous indignation.
it's not ok to malign freddy, but what you guys are doing to john and yoko
is cool, is it?
thats different somehow?
na
antonius wrote in message <7aj2p7$amq$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>As with most public figures, they are complex, and one may never get the
>full truth, but it's important to know things about them for history's sake
>in regards to their character and how one interprets their role in history.
>Yoko will forever be known as the loyal widow of John Lennon. Now, if she
>had been involved with another man prior to John's death-that is important
>knowledge for people to know so they can shine a more accurate light on who
>she was and judge accordingly.
that is not corect at all.
that is your view.
it is not important knowledge or the "truth" though.
what this is is rumour.
hearsay.
inadmissable in any court.
it's oprah.
>I think Yoko will be rightly considered a pioneer of experimental music and
>a major contributor to the origins of punk music. She will also be
>considered an overall positive creative force in John's life, as she should
>be, but I agree with others that the more insight we have into her
character
>the better.
but is that for furthering our knowledge in order to understand her
"position in history", or for grubby little hand rubbing grots saying " i
knew it, i knew she was a bitch. see what she did to poor johnny? he wasn't
even cold and she was in bed with another bloke and his boyfriend."
>Myths are nice and comforting, but they're not fair to those
>who suffer in their creation: Julian, Seaman or others who may not be
>remembered years hence for much of anything, but nevertheless are deserving
>of fair treatment simply because they are human beings.
this is totally spot on.
>Praise Yoko indeed, but if she's been unfair and cruel to people who do not
>have the money or power to defend themselves then turn on those spotlights
>and let's have justice and truth.
>
>Tony
admirable sentiment tony.
can you tell me how john might be able to defend himself over the
allegations she made about his indiscretions on the jl anthology?
it's all too easy to say what you want when that person ain't around to say
"hey wait a minute, that's not quite right you know.."
n
-BEN
>perhaps because the media might just find out the truth(about what, im
>not certain) and after all, and we wouldn't want that would we.?
The media already knows plenty of stuff you never hear from them.
Anyone who only followed the media wouldn't have a clue Yoko had a
boyfriend, let alone was married (if she is).
*If* Yoko is attempting to take us all for a ride with her 'grieving
widow' act, then as far as I'm concerned the truth *becomes* my
business, since Yoko is making it her business to deceive me. But this
basically comes down to whether or not you believe Fred is telling the
truth. Which you won't ever know for sure, so we might as well let him
have his say. Then you can choose whether to believe it or not. If you
don't care for the topics of what he has something to say, don't read
this thread. It doesn't mean others don't have to be interested in any
new information for whatever reason.
>>This would be boring except for the fact that Yoko has been playing
>>the grieving widow role forever and has never been upfront about a
>>relationship that has lasted longer than the one she had with J.
>
>and the beatles connection here is?
Well Yoko was married to one. Plenty of "half on topic" posts happen
here, from Beatle0esque bands to former wives & kids.
>this is the most ridiculous, blatant rumour mongering bunch of stuff i
>have ever heard.(well not ever, but its close)
>not that it did or didn't happen.
>john and yoko are not gods to me, merely ppl.
>i for one truly couldn't care less about ppl's sexual proclivities.
Nick, I respect your point of view mate, but don't speak for all of us.
I for one hope Fred & Elsa keep posting. If it's not your cup of tea,
don't read it. I steer clear of plenty of topics that piss me off.
Sorry to disagree but I just had to put the other *opinion* in here. :)
-BEN
na
-BEN wrote in message <36CD25...@hotmail.com>...
>
>*If* Yoko is attempting to take us all for a ride with her 'grieving
>widow' act, then as far as I'm concerned the truth *becomes* my
>business, since Yoko is making it her business to deceive me. But this
>basically comes down to whether or not you believe Fred is telling the
>truth. Which you won't ever know for sure, so we might as well let him
>have his say. Then you can choose whether to believe it or not. If you
>don't care for the topics of what he has something to say, don't read
>this thread. It doesn't mean others don't have to be interested in any
>new information for whatever reason.
<snipetty doo daa>
>Nick, I respect your point of view mate, but don't speak for all of us.
>I for one hope Fred & Elsa keep posting. If it's not your cup of tea,
>don't read it. I steer clear of plenty of topics that piss me off.
>
>Sorry to disagree but I just had to put the other *opinion* in here. :)
>-BEN
yeah you're right.
sorry fred and elsa.
please keep posting.
n
antonius
na wrote in message ...
>
>antonius wrote in message <7aj2p7$amq$1...@birch.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>
>>As with most public figures, they are complex, and one may never get the
>>full truth, but it's important to know things about them for history's
sake
>>in regards to their character and how one interprets their role in
history.
>>Yoko will forever be known as the loyal widow of John Lennon. Now, if she
>>had been involved with another man prior to John's death-that is important
>>knowledge for people to know so they can shine a more accurate light on
who
>>she was and judge accordingly.
>
>that is not corect at all.
>that is your view.
>it is not important knowledge or the "truth" though.
>what this is is rumour.
>hearsay.
>inadmissable in any court.
>it's oprah.
yes, and that's simply your opinion as well, nothing more, nothing less.
it's not "oprah" (does oprah deal only with rumors?) to consider the origins
and inspirations of great works of art. Look at how famous composers' lives
are constantly explored for the inspiration behind a famous piece of music.
yoko inspired many of lennon's compositions. The more we know about an
artist the better we can accurately understand their work.
Many so-called rumors turn out to be truth. Reflecting on current events:
monica started out as a rumor did she not? how can one accurately judge
whether information is rumor or truth until all the evidence is studied. In
regards to yoko's relationships they may not have a direct bearing on
judging lennon's work, but they have everything to do with yoko's portrayal
for history. Was she the faithful , loyal spouse or was she an independent
woman involved in an open marriage?
In many ways I like the idea that she may have been losing interest in
lennon towards the end ("I'm Moving On") and willing to pursue a life
separate from him. They might have split off again for awhile and then come
back together again as a stronger union.
>admirable sentiment tony.
>
>can you tell me how john might be able to defend himself over the
>allegations she made about his indiscretions on the jl anthology?
These allegations were around for some time I thought. I've certainly heard
them prior to her statements in the anthology. It was well known that lennon
had his dalliances. If everything is rumor and nothing is fact then we
might as well sit around and make up our own stories behind each of the
songs and pretend that john was faithful to cynthia during the course of
their marriage or that the love songs yoko sang were for sam and not john.
john himself talked about the many women in his life and if yoko was
cheating on him I'm sure he'd love for that information to be discovered on
his behalf....defense indeed.
Wouldn't it be neat if we could have everybody who ever knew the lennons and
then all the major players: yoko, paul, julian, sam, cynthia, seaman etc.
all appaer before us in a sort of courtroom situation and tell us their
version of events, giving them all lie detector tests and then judge the
truth accordingly? We won't ever know the whole truth of course, but we
would certainly gain insights that would form a clearer picture of events.
>
>it's all too easy to say what you want when that person ain't around to say
>"hey wait a minute, that's not quite right you know.."
Oh, my friend, that has been going on for some time now. Do you believe
everything your historians tell you about the past? Some people are
portrayed as villains and others as heroes. Look at how people are gaining
new insights into Thomas Jefferson's life now. clearly, there was some
hypocrisy going on in his life-it doesn't take away from my admiration for
his accomplishments, but it defines his character more for the historical
record.
I'm certain people will make false judgments about me after I'm gone-who can
stop such a thing from happening? but, you and I aren't historical figures
as john and yoko are. They will be anaylzed for years after we're gone,
rightly or wrongly, but always with interest I'm sure.
Cheers,
Tony
Amaranth56
musicians we admire feel like slime. An artist's personal life is intricately
entwined in their art. There doesn't have to be a direct connection with
particular songs. For example, treatises have been written making correlations
between Schumann's mental condition and his music.
You may say their lives are none of our business. Certainly a line must be
drawn. But what's the problem with wanting to know whom so-and-so is married
to, or what their kids are up to? What was their childhood like? What are
their spiritual or religious beliefs?
Why the self-righteous, holier-than-thou attitude because we're curious about
what kind of people write such incredible music?
The artist and their art are not discrete entities that have nothing to do with
each other. The art is what it is because the artist is what he or she is.
It's not only our business to know about their lives, it's necessary to
understand their art.
na
na
:)
must've been bored whle u guys were asleep.
i'm over it.
i didn't mean to make anyone feel bad about wanting to know that stuff.
sorry if i did.
Amaranth56 wrote in message
<19990219041601...@ng-fz1.aol.com>...
Amaranth56
>to. It's her personal business.
To understand an artist's art, it's necessary to understand the artist.
Treatises have been written correlating Schumann's mental condition with his
music. Would you insist that his mental condition is none of our business when
it's so intricately entwined with his composition methods?
>>>I want the truth. I don't care if it comes from Goldman, Seaman, Cynthia
>>>Lennon, Martin, Evans, Paul McCartney, or whoever. The falsehoods,
>>fantasies,
>>>misconceptions and manufactured public images do me no good.
>>
>>truth shmuth.
>>it's all gossip mate.
>
>Yep. More correctness, sir. One might also point out that "The falsehoods,
>fantasies, misconceptions and manufactured public images" (assuming
>they are there) do none of us any conceivable harm, either. No one here
>will die, become ill, have a car crash, lose their hearing or have their
>president impeached over a personal issue because Yoko wants to
>present her life a certain way. And there really is absolutely no reason
>why we should be entitled to know thing that she chooses to keep quiet.
>And if she's lied to us, which is certainly a possibility, so what? She owes
>us nothing. Paul owes us nothing. John owed us nothing.
Certainly lines must be drawn. However, a celebrity's marital status is hardly
stuff of the National Enquirer. People want to know about the artists they
admire. What kind of people are they? Are they married? What are their kids
up to? What are their spiritual or religious beliefs? All this directly
affects their art.
>>how can you equate some out-of-left-field post about someone's personal
>>lives as "the truth", especially while trying to justify it in the name of
>>fabs scholarship.
>
>Same mindset that led to the recent impeachment: that public people's
>private lives are somehow our business, and that we can somehow "know"
>the reasons and motivations for the behaviors of strangers. Neither of
>these concepts holds any water.
As a psychologist (?), you don't find motivations for behavior interesting?
All this holier-than-thou, self-righteous chest beating about the sins of
wanting to know about the lives of those we admire started with the tragic
death of Princess Diana. Certainly that's an extreme case -- as I wrote above,
lines must be drawn. However, to twist an interest in artists whom we adore
into something disgraceful is...well, disgraceful.
The pendulum has swung back to an extreme. Guess there's naught to do but wait
for it to settle back in the middle again.
Amaranth56
Where do you draw the line between pursuit of gossip and geniune curiosity
about the people whose music we admire? Understanding the artist helps us to
understand the art.
>i mean, if you want to get into that stuff, that's fine and all. please do.
>enjoy.
>but please don't try to justify it as valid fabs discussion.
>it is not.
Why is it not valid? Do you have a logical reason for saying this, or is it
just your personal preference? Would you consider a question about Olivia's
nationality valid? How about what Zak is up to?
That's right. You must not know who those people are.
JS made an excellent point. If Elliot Mintz had said the things Fred Seaman
did, via Elsa1234, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. Ditto the 1972
party at Jerry Rubin's. Had Fred Seaman said EXACTLY what Yoko did in her
::ahem:: 'tribute' to John, he'd be verbally lynched. Yoko, however, was
justified. Neither you nor Bob P. complained about it.
THAT I don't get. Apparently it IS acceptable to know about their private
lives, but it depends on who's conveying the info. And John never told this
story.
Amaranth56
>is cool, is it?
>
>thats different somehow?
There's a difference between calling someone a grave-robber, and saying that
Yoko is married.
The first was said out of anger, and the poster soon apologized. The latter is
a statement from someone who worked directly with Yoko at the time.
Amaranth56
>ok ok
>
>
Um, then ignore my next 2 posts ;-)
JSeraf7064
>i feel embarassed for you.
>
>sheesh.
You should feel embarrassed for yourself.
Deal with it.
-JS
JSeraf7064
act, then as far as I'm concerned the truth *becomes* my business, since Yoko
is making it her business to deceive me. But this basically comes down to
whether or not you believe Fred is telling the truth. Which you won't ever
know for sure, so we might as well let him have his say. Then you can choose
whether to believe it or not. If you don't care for the topics of what he has
something to say, don't read this thread. It doesn't mean others don't have to
be interested in any new information for whatever reason.
Very well stated.
I disagree with one thing though.... unless Yoko burned those diaries, someday
the truth will out.
-JS
JSeraf7064
if you want to get into that stuff, that's fine and all. please do. enjoy. but
please don't try to justify it as valid fabs discussion. it is not.
>
>:)
You 'gossip'. I 'gossip'.
Information from a person who has first-hand experience is a little bit higher
on the scale than 'gossip', I think.
But this is what gets people in an uproar anyway. The fact that it's more than
gossip.
-JS
JSeraf7064
>it's all gossip mate.
as "the truth", especially while trying to justify it in the name of
fabs scholarship.
>i dunno, i know you are alway seeking the bottom line and thats cool and all,
given the amount of argy bargy that gets flung around, but on this occasion,
it's irrelevant, in my view at least. it's gossip column stuff.
fuck all to do with anything beatles.
Yes, I am always looking for the 'bottom line'.
Sure, I post opinions, but I try very hard to make sure that those opinions are
as objective as I can be, and are derived from some justifiable evidence...
Hence, the need for the 'bottom line'.
But you are wrong that this info is useless.
Recently, I have been admiring Paul and Linda as parents... because their
children seems very strong, because they seem to have their heads on straight,
and seem to be 'real' people, venturing out in the world and doing something
with themselves. Raising such a family under Paul and Linda's circumstances
must have been very difficult and time consuming. It appears from the stories
that Paul and Linda were devoted parents, and the results seem to reflect this.
Certainly, I want to know if things just 'appear' that way, or if they really
ARE that way...
-JS
JSeraf7064
manufactured public images" (assuming they are there) do none of us any
conceivable harm, either.
Bullshit.
Aren't you one of those that constantly spew out your opinions on how much more
substantial and 'real' Lennon's work was?
What you're afraid of, is learning the meaning of hipocrisy.
-JS
-JS
JSeraf7064
board. Some folks analysis of events are rather flawed shall we say.
Personally, I think if you're reading a book like Goldman's, or any other book
of a biographical nature, that means you must be interested in the details such
a book might provide.
So, in the span of one paragraph, you've managed to admit that you do read such
books, yet question why anyone would, or would want the information contained
in them.
Well,convoluted thinking has always been one of your strong points. Your posts
seem like just a windbag blowing hot air to me. Thanks for another one.
-JS
RasMaster
In article <19990219043722...@ng-fz1.aol.com>, amara...@aol.com
(Amaranth56) writes:
>JS made an excellent point. If Elliot Mintz had said the things Fred Seaman
>did, via Elsa1234, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it. Ditto the
>1972
>party at Jerry Rubin's. Had Fred Seaman said EXACTLY what Yoko did in her
>::ahem:: 'tribute' to John, he'd be verbally lynched. Yoko, however, was
>justified. Neither you nor Bob P. complained about it.
Here's the difference: Elliot Mintz hasn't. I truly doubt he would. But if he
did share private information without Yoko's permission, I'd have a problem
with that, too. I can't see it happening, but if it did, it would be little
better than Seaman's behavior. It wouldn't be quite as low, because he's
not stolen from them, his former employers, as has Seaman.
As to Yoko's revelations: That is her right. I don't understand why you don't
get this - it's her life, and she can reveal what she wants to, and has the
right, as do you and I, to keep private those things she wants to keep
private. And to make public those things she wants to make public
about her life. Sharing an episode about her life with John is her choice.
Sharing whether she married someone after John's death is also her
choice. Not Fred Seaman's. And you don't really think Elliot Mintz would
sink to that, now do you?
>THAT I don't get. Apparently it IS acceptable to know about their private
>lives, but it depends on who's conveying the info. And John never told this
>story
Of course, it makes all the difference in the world. It was Yoko's life. She
can say whatever she wants about her life with John. This was something
that happened when they were together, which affected her.
And as long as I've been reading this forum, I've yet to see the poster you
refer to make what I would consider an "excellent point" about anything,
but "na" made a really good one: the same people that thought Yoko out
of line for sharing a piece of HER OWN LIFE! think Fred Seaman is fully
justified to come out of nowhere with unproven allegations about an issue
that, even if true, are none of our business. Our business is limited to
those things that celebrities like Yoko choose to make public.
Surely you don't think Elliot Mintz would cross that line. Perhaps if he and
Yoko had a falling out. Then, if he did, he'd be near or at the same level as
Seaman. One does not spread dirt on former or current friends and/or
employers. If you are inclined to think that is okay, I hope we never work
together or share secrets.
RasMaster
In article <19990219042711...@ng-fz1.aol.com>, amara...@aol.com
(Amaranth56) writes:
>>'zactly correct, sir. We have no "need" to know who Yoko is living or
>married
>>to. It's her personal business.
>
>To understand an artist's art, it's necessary to understand the artist.
>Treatises have been written correlating Schumann's mental condition with his
>music. Would you insist that his mental condition is none of our business
>when it's so intricately entwined with his composition methods?
>
Certainly there's an argument to made there. However, if he or his immediate
family were still alive when one was writing such a treatise, I'd say that was
out of line.
>Certainly lines must be drawn. However, a celebrity's marital status is
>hardly
>stuff of the National Enquirer. People want to know about the artists they
>admire. What kind of people are they? Are they married? What are their
>kids
>up to? What are their spiritual or religious beliefs? All this directly
>affects their art.
>
But there is no "right" to know. And if any of those artists choose to keep one
or more of those areas secret, that is their right.
>As a psychologist (?), you don't find motivations for behavior interesting?
M.A. Clinical Psychology, actually, but thanks for the upgrade.
Sure, I find people's motivations interesting. And I mind my own business,
unless they choose to share it with me. And once they have shared it
with me, it's the law, and it's morally right that I keep confidentiality
unless
they specifically allow me to share that information. And when research is
done, great pains are taken to make sure that the names of the participants
remain secret.
ire...@hotmail.com
'HIPOCRISY'??
It would be much better for you to learn how to spell the bloody word first.
wmulholland
I (wmulholland) had written in the newsgroup yesterday:
>Personally, I can't read things from say Goldman and really take them on
board. Some folks analysis of events are rather flawed shall we say.
======================================================
JSeraf replies (via e-mail):
"Personally, I think if you're reading a book like Goldman's, or any other book
of a biographical nature, that means you must be interested in the details such
a book might provide.
So, in the span of one paragraph, you've managed to admit that you do read such
books, yet question why anyone would, or would want the information contained
in them.
Well,convoluted thinking has always been one of your strong points. Your posts
seem like just a windbag blowing hot air to me. Thanks for another one. JS"
==========================================================
Me writes - No comment to the e-mail required by me, I feel :0) Life is much
too short.
CaroJ11
>than
Maybe this really IS the bottom line..LOL!
I don't care when Sam Havadtory moved into the Dakota. And I don't care if he
and Yoko were having an illicit affair before John's death. That's unprovable
anyway.
BUT, if Mrs. Yoko Ono Lennon has truly been Mrs. Sam Havadtory for the last 18
years, and kept it secret all this time, that's NEWS. Real news, not gossip.
And if this is verified, it would make world news far beyond our little circle
here. It indicates far more about her character than most her fans want to
believe. What motive would she have? Privacy? We've seen little indication that
she's a private person; she's always before a camera. If she's hid her
remarriage all these years, it's for one reason only, and that is it's been
financially advantageous for her to do so.
Personally, I do wonder about the truth of all this, as neither Paul nor Julian
have revealed anything alluding to such, which would seem likely---although
Fred's been correct in much of what he's said in the past. Perhaps Yoko and
Sam made a private ceremonial committment to one another, but never made it a
legal one.
I seriously doubt if anyone here fully believes the J&Y company love line
anymore, there's been too much information to the contrary, but should this
allegation actually be true, several of our posters may have to seriously
rethink how they view Ms. Ono. In other words, maybe she IS as mercenary as
they say! LOL! ---CarolJ
Amaranth56
>don't get this -
I do get it, Bob. Honest! What I don't get is how she could have loved John
and told that particular story in what was supposed to have been a tribute to
John. If that's part of how Yoko wants John remembered, she must have precious
little respect for him. That just MHO.
> it's her life, and she can reveal what she wants to, and has the
>right, as do you and I, to keep private those things she wants to keep
>private. And to make public those things she wants to make public
>about her life. Sharing an episode about her life with John is her choice.
>Sharing whether she married someone after John's death is also her
>choice. Not Fred Seaman's. And you don't really think Elliot Mintz would
>sink to that, now do you?
As long as he's Yoko's hired hand, Mintz will not reveal anything Yoko doesn't
want revealed.
And what about John's wishes? John never revealed that story -- he had 9 years
to do so. Obviously, he didn't want the public to know about it. So what
gives Yoko the right to reveal something about John that it seems John didn't
want revealed? No, being his widow doesn't hack it, IMO.
What would you think of Paul if, in the liner notes of Wide Prairie, he
revealed something as horrible about Linda?
>>THAT I don't get. Apparently it IS acceptable to know about their private
>>lives, but it depends on who's conveying the info. And John never told this
>>story
>
>Of course, it makes all the difference in the world. It was Yoko's life. She
>can say whatever she wants about her life with John. This was something
>that happened when they were together, which affected her.
I disagree. John and Yoko were still two discrete entities. In 9 years, John
never told that story to the public. He didn't want the public to know. That
should have been respected. Even if one believes Yoko has the right to say
whatever she wants about John, the Lennon Anth -- so far the highest tribute to
John -- was the wrong place in which to reveal such a thing.
>And as long as I've been reading this forum, I've yet to see the poster you
>refer to make what I would consider an "excellent point" about anything,
>but "na" made a really good one: the same people that thought Yoko out
>of line for sharing a piece of HER OWN LIFE! think Fred Seaman is fully
>justified to come out of nowhere with unproven allegations about an issue
>that, even if true, are none of our business.
Working for John and Yoko was Fred Seaman's own life for 3 years. A firsthand
witness doesn't count as proof?
>Our business is limited to
>those things that celebrities like Yoko choose to make public.
What if Paul had said it? We have been expected to accept things Paul has said
in Many Years From Now. So you'd have to accept Fred Seaman and John Green
have to say as well. It was their life, too. A job is a large part of most
people's lives.
>Surely you don't think Elliot Mintz would cross that line. Perhaps if he and
>Yoko had a falling out. Then, if he did, he'd be near or at the same level as
>Seaman. One does not spread dirt on former or current friends and/or
>employers.
But husbands are fair game?
>If you are inclined to think that is okay, I hope we never work
>together or share secrets.
Then it would surprise you to know how well I keep my FRIENDS' secrets. The
only way I could prove it to you would be to break several promises. But I
won't do that; not even to you in private e-mail. So your statement binds me
in a trap that I suspect you know I won't claw my way out of.
Very well done.
Lizz Holmans
>
(posting a private e-mail to himself written by another poster)
Ah, for Pete's sake.
Posting private e-mail to Usenet is a severe breach of Usenet etiquette.
It always has been.
Not only is it abuse on the 'net, it's just plain rude.
And a violation of the sender's copyright.
We did this whole thing not too long ago. Please, let's all try to
remember it.
Lizz "" Holmans
--
Visit http://www.urbanlegends.com
Lizz Holmans
>'HIPOCRISY'??
>
>It would be much better for you to learn how to spell the bloody word first.
It would be much better if you'd learn that a spelling flame is the
lamest flame.
Lizz 'Old flame' Holmans
--
Visit http://www.urbanlegends.com
strwbry...@my-dejanews.com
"antonius" <al...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
> Yoko has considerable power and the public tend to put people like her on a
> pedestal and dismiss any wrongdoing she might engage in.
She may have power, but she's not *that* high up on a pedestal. Whenever she
says something in the press or whatever, people are on her immediately.
People are pissed at her for whatever reasons and they will always be. As for
her being John's "loyal widow," she is loyal in the media sense. We don't
know what she does behind closed doors. I may not love Yoko, but I don't like
the idea of her secretly marrying someone else--especially if she really
*did* date the said groom before John died. It's different if there's love,
which there probably is. Why didn't she tell John? Was she scared it wouldn't
work out and then would have no one for support? There's a bad flavour to all
of this.
> I don't think she
> was justified in how she handled Seaman or Julian.
How did she treat them? Please explain--I wasn't around then and not much is
stated in books I've read.
StrwbrySunshine
PS-It kinda would be nice to think of her as John's "loyal widow" even with
all that other garbage around her (the comments about the Beatles, etc.).
Even though she makes some people mad (which I don't really want to
explain/not excepting myself), thinking of her defending John not just in the
press is a nice thought. Hard to explain.
Strawberry
"It's so fine, it's sunshine."
RonDe...@webtv.net
na
Lizz Holmans wrote in message ...
>ire...@hotmail.com writes
>>'HIPOCRISY'??
>>
>>It would be much better for you to learn how to spell the bloody word
first.
>
>It would be much better if you'd learn that a spelling flame is the
>lamest flame.
LOL
na
Lizz Holmans wrote in message ...
>>
>(posting a private e-mail to himself written by another poster)
>
>Ah, for Pete's sake.
>
>Posting private e-mail to Usenet is a severe breach of Usenet etiquette.
>It always has been.
>
>Not only is it abuse on the 'net, it's just plain rude.
>
>And a violation of the sender's copyright.
>
>We did this whole thing not too long ago. Please, let's all try to
>remember it.
what was the question again?
cee...@pacbell.net
> > this! However, before we can alert said media to the "fraud" the dear
grieving
> > widow may have fostered on the public, we do need unquestionable
verification
> > from Hungarian marriage records. I admit I've searched, but without knowing
> the
> > language I'm at a loss. Any of our European posters able to substantiate
this
> > with documentation?---CarolJ
> >
> >
>
> I seriously doubt that "Elsa" will respond to this.
> As usual, when facts are requested we are greeted with complete silence.
ire...@hotmail.com
ire...@hotmail.com writes in reply to JSeraf:
>>>'HIPOCRISY'??
>>It would be much better for you to learn how to spell the bloody word
first.
>It would be much better if you'd learn that a spelling flame is the
>lamest flame.
A defender of sera? The flamer has won the lottery....he's found a friend at
last.
wmulholland
> wmulholland <wmulh...@cwcom.net> writes
> >
> (posting a private e-mail to himself written by another poster)
>
who says an e-mail is private? Does it say on the packet.
>
> Ah, for Pete's sake.
Who is Pete?
>
>
> Posting private e-mail to Usenet is a severe breach of Usenet etiquette.
> It always has been.
>
Rubbishing others is a severe breach of human etiquette.
>
> Not only is it abuse on the 'net, it's just plain rude.
>
Yes, I thought it was a rude e-mail too.......thank you for the concern Liz.
>
> And a violation of the sender's copyright.
>
Actually when someone sends unsolicited e-mail (and rude at that) it
breaches my privacy.
>
> We did this whole thing not too long ago. Please, let's all try to
> remember it.
>
*notices the condescending tone that runs through your postings*
DaftChris8
>JSeraf7064 e-mailed me this.
You know, he posted it, too.
So you don't need to.
--
Christine
"The sun, the track, and porcupines- the recipe for fun!"
wmulholland
> wmulholland wrote:
> >JSeraf7064 e-mailed me this.
>
> You know, he posted it, too.
>
> So you don't need to.
Thanks Christine for letting me know.
I've always wondered why some postings do not appear in Netscape's
newsgroup reader (only one or two every so often). Anyone find
similar problems?
RasMaster
>
>>>One might also point out that "The falsehoods, fantasies, misconceptions
>and
>>>manufactured public images" (assuming they are there) do none of us any
>>>conceivable harm, either.
>
>>Bullshit.
>>Aren't you one of those that constantly spew out your opinions on how much
>more
>>substantial and 'real' Lennon's work was?
>>What you're afraid of, is learning the meaning of hipocrisy.
>>-JS
>>-JS
>
>
>'HIPOCRISY'??
>
>It would be much better for you to learn how to spell the bloody word first.
Beyond which, two points.
First, he simplified what I have written in the past about John's work, but
no matter. Plain and simple, I've written my opinion of John's music. I find
that it is more substancial than Paul's (indeed, more than most other
musician's music) and that it speaks more directly to me (i.e. more
real), among many other things. I have never presented those things
as any more than my opinions and my personal reactions to his music.
Second, assuming his point is correct (which I don't), that I have fallen for
some false image of John, I still ask the same question: who is hurt? What
difference
does it make?
I asked who is harmed. He answered with a rephrasing of my musical
preferences. That is, so far as I can tell, a non sequitor, not hypocrasy.
wmulholland
this).....wonderful.
Wondering if anyone can recommend a good Beatles mp3 site?
Thanks in advance :0)
RasMaster
RasMaster
In article <19990219171407...@ng40.aol.com>, amara...@aol.com
(Amaranth56) writes:
>As long as he's Yoko's hired hand, Mintz will not reveal anything Yoko
>doesn't
>want revealed.
Exactly as it should be. She has the right to keep private those things she
wants kept private.
>
>And what about John's wishes? John never revealed that story -- he had 9
>years
>to do so. Obviously, he didn't want the public to know about it. So what
>gives Yoko the right to reveal something about John that it seems John didn't
>want revealed? No, being his widow doesn't hack it, IMO.
Um, it happened in her life. It's something she personally experienced. It
was something done to her. She was not only there, it was central to her
life at that moment, being, as it was, done by her husband.
>
>What would you think of Paul if, in the liner notes of Wide Prairie, he
>revealed something as horrible about Linda?
I don't find it horrible, first of all. And the more accurate question would
have
to be "... revealed something similar that Linda had done to him". He'd be
within his rights, just as Yoko is. And I'd be less interested, probably,
having less interest in general in Paul and Linda than I do in John and
Yoko. And I barely find the John story interesting.
>
>I disagree. John and Yoko were still two discrete entities. In 9 years,
>John never told that story to the public. He didn't want the public to know.
>That should have been respected. Even if one believes Yoko has the right to
say
>whatever she wants about John, the Lennon Anth -- so far the highest tribute
>to John -- was the wrong place in which to reveal such a thing.
>
Yoko has a right, as anyone does, to talk about anything she has done or
that has happened in her marriage. Or to keep it private.
>>And as long as I've been reading this forum, I've yet to see the poster you
>>refer to make what I would consider an "excellent point" about anything,
>>but "na" made a really good one: the same people that thought Yoko out
>>of line for sharing a piece of HER OWN LIFE! think Fred Seaman is fully
>>justified to come out of nowhere with unproven allegations about an issue
>>that, even if true, are none of our business.
>
>Working for John and Yoko was Fred Seaman's own life for 3 years. A
>firsthand witness doesn't count as proof?
>
Of course not. He could make anything up. But that's besides the point.
Yoko revealed an incident from her own life! Seaman is revealing a
supposed incident which, even if true, is from someone else's life. It
didn't happen "to him". No one did it "to him". It was not part of an
intimate relationship between him and another person. It is, frankly, none
of his business who his employer, or former employer is married to or
isn't married to.
Tell you what, for the sake of argument, I'll assume that everything you think
is true about Yoko is true. It's still none of our business.
>>Our business is limited to
>>those things that celebrities like Yoko choose to make public.
>
>What if Paul had said it? We have been expected to accept things Paul has
>said in Many Years From Now. So you'd have to accept Fred Seaman and John
Green have to say as well. It was their life, too. A job is a large part of
most
>people's lives.
>
Things Paul says about things John did that impacted their relationship, one
which was much like a marriage, are fair game. He was Paul's partner. On
the other hand, if Paul wants to reveal something private from John and
Yoko's private life, something Yoko and John have not revealed, that would
be out of line. If Paul's done that, I'd not know, necessarily, not having read
all that much about him lately.
>>Surely you don't think Elliot Mintz would cross that line. Perhaps if he and
>>>Yoko had a falling out. Then, if he did, he'd be near or at the same level
>as Seaman. One does not spread dirt on former or current friends and/or
>>employers.
>
>But husbands are fair game?
>
How is it dirt? It is her life! She can talk about her personal life
experiences all
she wants. Things that directly affect her. If I choose to write about my wife
here in rmb (which I doubt I would), particularly if she were no longer alive,
I'd be within my rights. If I tell you something, about my wife, and you spread
it to rmb, that would be inappropriate.
>>If you are inclined to think that is okay, I hope we never work
>>together or share secrets.
>
>Then it would surprise you to know how well I keep my FRIENDS' secrets. The
>only way I could prove it to you would be to break several promises. But I
>won't do that; not even to you in private e-mail. So your statement binds me
>in a trap that I suspect you know I won't claw my way out of.
>
>Very well done.
>
I wasn't referring to you in particular, but to those who disagree here. And I
don't see the trap or the binding. If you truly think it's important to keep
the
secrets of those who hold you to them, how can you approve of Seaman's
behavior?
RasMaster
In article <RGFWTKAQ...@jackalope.demon.co.uk>, Lizz Holmans
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>It would be much better if you'd learn that a spelling flame is the
>lamest flame.
The Lamest Flame stays mainly in the Plain.
Bob
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
"na" <.> wrote:
>
> -BEN wrote in message <36CD25...@hotmail.com>...
>
> >
> >*If* Yoko is attempting to take us all for a ride with her 'grieving
> >widow' act, then as far as I'm concerned the truth *becomes* my
> >business, since Yoko is making it her business to deceive me. But this
> >basically comes down to whether or not you believe Fred is telling the
> >truth. Which you won't ever know for sure, so we might as well let him
> >have his say. Then you can choose whether to believe it or not. If you
> >don't care for the topics of what he has something to say, don't read
> >this thread. It doesn't mean others don't have to be interested in any
> >new information for whatever reason.
>
> <snipetty doo daa>
>
> >Nick, I respect your point of view mate, but don't speak for all of us.
> >I for one hope Fred & Elsa keep posting. If it's not your cup of tea,
> >don't read it. I steer clear of plenty of topics that piss me off.
> >
> >Sorry to disagree but I just had to put the other *opinion* in here. :)
> >-BEN
>
> yeah you're right.
> sorry fred and elsa.
> please keep posting.
> n
>
Thankyou!
elsa
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
"na" <.> wrote:
>
> elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <7aiqjr$og9$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <19990217183435...@ng18.aol.com>,
> > jsera...@aol.com (JSeraf7064) wrote:
> >> >why do we need to know this, even if it is true?
> >>
> >> What the hell do you come here for, and why didn't you stop reading if
> you
> >> didn't want to know it?
> >>
> >> "The truth shall set us free".
> >>
> >> Is it the truth?
> >>
> >> -JS
> >>
> >>
> >Yes it is the truth
> >
> >elsa
>
> sure, if you say so.
>
> but then, going by your post, yoko is a beatle too, eh?
>
>
Very cute
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >Can't help you there. Fred seems quite sure that a wedding took place
> because
> >that appeared to be the plan.
>
> great logic.. "fred seems quite certain" .."that appeared to be the
> plan"..hahahaha...
> this is a joke, right?
>
> >Obviously, one would not want to bet one's life
> >on whether or not the wedding actually took place or not. As far as
> alerting
> >the media. Who cares about that?
>
> perhaps because the media might just find out the truth(about what, im not
> certain) and after all, and we wouldn't want that would we.?
>
> > This would
> >be boring except for the fact that Yoko has been playing the grieving
> widow
> >role forever and has never been upfront about a relationship that has
> lasted
> >longer than the one she had with J.
> >
> and the beatles connection here is?
>
> this is the most ridiculous, blatant rumour mongering bunch of stuff i have
> ever heard.(well not ever, but its close)
> not that it did or didn't happen.
> john and yoko are not gods to me, merely ppl.
> i for one truly couldn't care less about ppl's sexual proclivities.
> but the fact that you guys spam us about some personal details and then get
> all hoity-toity, ranting and raving about "the truth setting you free" and a
> whole lot of bunkum about who "fred seems to think that's what had to happen
> because he feels that was the apparent plan".."one wouldn't want to bet
> one's life".
> i mean seriously... your kidding right?
> i feel embarassed for you.
>
> sheesh.
>
Oh for heaven's sake. It's very noble of you not to care about y's sex life.
For this you get a metal. What I was trying to convey was that the common
knowledge among the people who worked for the Lennons was that a wedding had
taken place. No one can say they saw the event. However, these people were
certainly in a position to have an educated opinion on the subject,
particularly if they heard Yoko and her publicist discuss the advisability of
making it public. If you don't care or don't want to know, that's fine. Just
please don't get all hostile and wierd about it. Also, to all of you who are
offended by discussions about Yoko's personal life, keep in mind that she is
a public figure, and therefore fair game for the media of all kinds. Congrats
to those who never read or concern themselves with the private lives of all
those famous people whose lives are fodder for the press. Personally, I'd
rather get my information from someone who was closer to the situation than a
reporter looking to break a story. I've seen things written about Fred and
other people I know that were distorted so badly that no truth could be found
there at all.
na
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7al8lb$rs7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <newscache$j09e7f$bh3@niton>,
> "na" <.> wrote:
>>
>> -BEN wrote in message <36CD25...@hotmail.com>...
>>
>> >
>> >*If* Yoko is attempting to take us all for a ride with her 'grieving
>> >widow' act, then as far as I'm concerned the truth *becomes* my
>> >business, since Yoko is making it her business to deceive me. But this
>> >basically comes down to whether or not you believe Fred is telling the
>> >truth. Which you won't ever know for sure, so we might as well let him
>> >have his say. Then you can choose whether to believe it or not. If you
>> >don't care for the topics of what he has something to say, don't read
>> >this thread. It doesn't mean others don't have to be interested in any
>> >new information for whatever reason.
>>
>> <snipetty doo daa>
>>
>> >Nick, I respect your point of view mate, but don't speak for all of us.
>> >I for one hope Fred & Elsa keep posting. If it's not your cup of tea,
>> >don't read it. I steer clear of plenty of topics that piss me off.
>> >
>> >Sorry to disagree but I just had to put the other *opinion* in here. :)
>> >-BEN
>>
>> yeah you're right.
>> sorry fred and elsa.
>> please keep posting.
>> n
>>
>Thankyou!
>
>elsa
np
but can you take that holden dude somewhere else?
:)
elsa...@my-dejanews.com
I think you are being optimistic when you say that few people still believe
the J&L company love line. I think a great many people believe it. That's why
some of these posts get them so upset. As far as a possible marriage being
big news, I guess it would be considered interesting. Fred posted this
information to educate people but not in the way many of them are taking it.
I don't know how many people actually read Fred's book but I know my main
impressions of the book were that 1- John loved Yoko 2- Yoko was cold and
unloving towards John. 3- Fred felt sorry that John seemed to try so hard for
so little. 4- Both John and Yoko were/are complicated flawed people. Most of
all I could see that Fred loved John. I believe that he tells people these
things about Yoko because he hopes you will all understand that Yoko was not
the loving wife many of you believe she was. She is a cold, hard person and
always was. Some of the stuff written about her life before John is
facinating. To be fair though, if Yoko had admitted to the marriage with Sam
the public would have put her through hell. So why would she want that, after
what she put up with after she and John got together. Isn't being treated
like a grieving widow better?
Not to change the subject or anything, but did anyone see the show on the
Beatle wives or that other thing about the Lennon family coupled with a
segment on the Kennedys.? Some of Fred's pictures were used for that one and
he was interviewed briefly. The Beatle wives show was on Sunday, tthe other
show was on Monday night on Fox family channel.
elsa
-BEN
>Actually when someone sends unsolicited e-mail (and rude at that) it
>breaches my privacy.
You have every right to put JSeraf on your email-ignore list. Until you
do, by posting to newsgroups you give anybody the right to email you
(unless, possibly, they are simply spamming).
But JSeraf emails to people anything he posts, so next time you get one
you'll know it's just a normal post anyway. :)
But you haven't done anything wrong in this case, as JS's article was
posted anyway. Just don't do it again. :)
-BEN
na
i've already pulled my head in on this topic..which you have thanked me for.
no need to go thru every post i made and take issue.
it over already.
ok?
get over it.
n
elsa...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7alaku$tlh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...