Yoko To Display John Lennon's Bloody Clothes
AllaBest
collaborated with Yoko Ono to open an exhibit featuring the effects of
the late, great John Lennon, including his piano, the "New York City"
t-shirt he made famous... and a paper bag containing the bloody
clothes from the night he was shot to death. "It was hard to include,"
Ono told the AP. "And I thought it might be criticized as well."
Ono says she made the decision because she wants people to see
the effects of gun violence, but I dunno, Mixers: Aren't we all pretty
clear on what guns do? What do you think? Is this a legitimate
opportunity for education and reflection, or just further
capitalization on the tragic murder of a talented man? Is Yoko making
the right decision in trotting these intimate artifacts out? Or is it
time to put poor John to rest already? And will you be attending the
exhibit?
Kat
who?
Well, although she was married to
John, I have mixed feelings about this. I guess she is entitled to
do what she likes. I wouldn't attend the exhibit though. I prefer
to remember John when he was still alive.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
She kept a bloody bag all theses years? Hope it was in the fridge.
.....she wants us too see the effects of gun violence....(we know
nightly)
who?
Right, Jim. and you know, I might go see Abe Lincoln's bloody
clothes, when he was shot..but it wouldn't effect me, cause
I wasn't even alive. But I don't have any interest in these
types of events, so unless I was stuck with another
driver..and don't want to be in the hot sun, that's the
only way somebody would talk me into attending.
I don't even really like public places that much. I go
somewhere and get out of there fast!
The thing that interests me..is record conventions.
Have you ever been to one?
Magnus Pyke
"I wanted the whole world to be reminded of what happened. People are
offended by the glasses and the blood? The glasses are a tiny part of
what happened. If people can’t stomach the glasses, I’m sorry. There
was a dead body. There was blood. His whole body was bloody . . .
That’s the reality . . . He was killed. People are offended by the
glasses and the blood? John had to stomach a lot more.”
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Try to stay away from ALL conventions/malls/crowded highways and Porta
Potty's
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
So we should go to a show, showing bloody bits to remind us of the
tragic night?
Yes, John had to stomach much more...five slugs. Don't need to see his
blood as a reminder how awful guns are (in the wrong hands).
BlackMonk
"BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Blackpo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8b7c342d-5b28-40e4...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
. . . He was killed. People are offended by the
> glasses and the blood? John had to stomach a lot more.�- Hide quoted
> text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
< So we should go to a show, showing bloody bits to remind us of the
tragic night? <
Do you think all art should only be pretty and reassuring?
You don't have to go, or even like it, but it's a valid reason for the
piece. If you ever have a husband shot to death, you can reflect that event
artistically however you choose and Yoko won't have any right to
second-guess you, either.
I suppose you could say that this isn't art, it's just an exhibit about his
life, but then isn't the end of his life a valid part of the exhibit?
< Yes, John had to stomach much more...five slugs. Don't need to see his
blood as a reminder how awful guns are (in the wrong hands). >
Sometimes even in the right hands. Which could mean that while you don't
need the reminder, some people do.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
> "BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Blackpoolji...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8b7c342d-5b28-40e4...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> . . . He was killed. People are offended by the
>
> > glasses and the blood? John had to stomach a lot more.”- Hide quoted
> > text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> < So we should go to a show, showing bloody bits to remind us of the
> tragic night? <
>
> Do you think all art should only be pretty and reassuring?
Nope
>
> You don't have to go, or even like it, but it's a valid reason for the
> piece. If you ever have a husband shot to death, you can reflect that event
> artistically however you choose and Yoko won't have any right to
> second-guess you, either.
Um. ok.
>
> I suppose you could say that this isn't art, it's just an exhibit about his
> life, but then isn't the end of his life a valid part of the exhibit?
>
> < Yes, John had to stomach much more...five slugs. Don't need to see his
> blood as a reminder how awful guns are (in the wrong hands). >
>
> Sometimes even in the right hands. Which could mean that while you don't
> need the reminder, some people do.
Oh, ok.
I suppose if Yoko bagged Lennon's last shit and displayed that...you'd
find that an interesting part of the story.
Different strokes...
who?
I do. I don't care for any of them. :-)
BlackMonk
< I suppose if Yoko bagged Lennon's last shit and displayed that...you'd
find that an interesting part of the story. >
No, but if he'd died of anal cancer, I'd consider his medical records to be
an important part of the story.
Surely, you can see the difference in signficance between being shot to
death and taking a shit. Those who can't are probably exactly those people
who need to see the blood.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
> "BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Blackpoolji...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:072cd05b-30e2-4deb-af40-M
>
> < I suppose if Yoko bagged Lennon's last shit and displayed that...you'd
> find that an interesting part of the story. >
>
> No, but if he'd died of anal cancer, I'd consider his medical records to be
> an important part of the story.
Where are we going with this? Showing Lennon's bloody glasses...a
bloody bag that held his bloody cloths is the same thing (in my
opinion) as showing the last shit he took before being shot. Just
putting all the facts down in the man's last hours. Now we are on anal
cancer. You would consider his medical records, part of the story. I
agree......but should we also show his eaten away anal cavity,
carefully stored in candy jar?
The medical records of Lennon's last hours SHOULD be shown in such an
exhibit.....not his blood and guts. They are there to increase ticket
sales.
>
> Surely, you can see the difference in signficance between being shot to
> death and taking a shit. Those who can't are probably exactly those people
> who need to see the blood.
No....his LAST shit.
Art is art for those who think it is. So be it. I believe there are
lines.
An exhibit of 911 bone fragments and soft tissue by an "artist" would
have the same merit for you? Why/why not?
Fattuchus
> collaborated with Yoko Ono to open an exhibit featuring the effects of
> the late, great John Lennon, including his piano, the "New York City"
> t-shirt he made famous... and a paper bag containing the bloody
> clothes from the night he was shot to death. "It was hard to include,"
> Ono told the AP. "And I thought it might be criticized as well."
> Ono says she made the decision because she wants people to see
> the effects of gun violence, but I dunno, Mixers: Aren't we all pretty
> clear on what guns do? What do you think? Is this a legitimate
> opportunity for education and reflection, or just further
> capitalization on the tragic murder of a talented man?
I don't see this as an educational thing. People know what guns
do . . . especially in NYC.
However, I do think it is proper to make this part of a museum
exhibit. John was a historical figure and his assassination is the
rock and roll version of the killing of Jack Kennedy. IMO people
should be given a warning before they view the actual exhibit since
some may find the this display "too much."
BlackMonk
On May 16, 6:31?pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@msn.com> wrote:
> "BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Blackpoolji...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:072cd05b-30e2-4deb-af40-M
>
> < I suppose if Yoko bagged Lennon's last shit and displayed that...you'd
> find that an interesting part of the story. >
>
> No, but if he'd died of anal cancer, I'd consider his medical records to
> be
> an important part of the story.
< Where are we going with this? Showing Lennon's bloody glasses...a
bloody bag that held his bloody cloths is the same thing (in my
opinion) as showing the last shit he took before being shot. Just
putting all the facts down in the man's last hours. Now we are on anal
cancer. You would consider his medical records, part of the story. I
agree......but should we also show his eaten away anal cavity,
carefully stored in candy jar? .>
That would get the reality across to those who don't quite get it, wouldn't
it?
I suspect some people don't see his death as a real death with blood and
violence, they see it as part of "The Beatles Saga," just one more reason to
rant about Yoko, warn about government consipracies or eulogize "the
sixties," and those are the people who won't understand unless it's spelled
out for them.
<
The medical records of Lennon's last hours SHOULD be shown in such an
exhibit.....not his blood and guts. They are there to increase ticket
sales.
>
I doubt it. How would they increase ticket sales if your reaction, "this
shouldn't be done," is more common than "wow, John's bloody clothes, I want
to see that?" Have you ever heard anyone say that they're going to this
because of John's clothes being there?
> Surely, you can see the difference in signficance between being shot to
> death and taking a shit. Those who can't are probably exactly those people
> who need to see the blood.
< No....his LAST shit.
Art is art for those who think it is. So be it. I believe there are
lines.
An exhibit of 911 bone fragments and soft tissue by an "artist" would
have the same merit for you? Why/why not? >
It would be equally as legitimate, especially if it were done by a spouse of
one of the victims. You and I have a level of detachment, but it's
reasonable for the surviving spouse to feel the violence of the act more
acutely and feel, rightly or wrongly, that something like this is necessary
for other people to understand. Perhaps it seems even more necessary in this
case, so that people understand a person died here, not just a celebrity and
an ex-Beatle.
Fattuchus
I don't know if I would want to see the bloody clothes at an exhibit
(although they may be exhibited in a bag, not out for all to see).
However as far as the "morality" of putting it on display, I think the
idea is fine in a respectful museum display.
I don't think such artifacts should be used to sell an album (such as
using John's bloody glasses to sell Season of Glass).
Fattuchus
> On May 16, 6:31 pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Blackpoolji...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> > news:072cd05b-30e2-4deb-af40-M
>
> > < I suppose if Yoko bagged Lennon's last shit and displayed that...you'd
> > find that an interesting part of the story. >
>
> > No, but if he'd died of anal cancer, I'd consider his medical records to be
> > an important part of the story.
>
> Where are we going with this? Showing Lennon's bloody glasses...a
> bloody bag that held his bloody cloths is the same thing (in my
> opinion) as showing the last shit he took before being shot. Just
> putting all the facts down in the man's last hours. Now we are on anal
> cancer. You would consider his medical records, part of the story. I
> agree......but should we also show his eaten away anal cavity,
> carefully stored in candy jar?
>
> The medical records of Lennon's last hours SHOULD be shown in such an
> exhibit.....not his blood and guts. They are there to increase ticket
> sales.
I was thinking that if one wanted to put something on display about
John's death, the death certificate and/or coronor's report would be a
good idea.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
So be it...Nice going back and forth with you on the subject. Like I
said....different strokes.
RichL
I've gotta pipe up here.
This may surprise those who consider me a "Yoko sycophant".
I'm really disturbed by this. And I'm speaking as one who has
experienced the sudden, tragic death of a loved one up close. It simply
strikes me as exploitative.
Anyone who has experienced the death of a loved one, or has any empathy
for those who have, don't need to be reminded of the gory details of
this type of death.
Let me tell you about one of my experiences. At one point back when I
worked for a government laboratory, one of the lab's PR people decided
it would be a good idea to get a car from a junkyard that had been in a
terrible wreck and park it out front of the laboratory as a reminder to
those of us who drove by it of the dangers of drunken driving, reckless
driving, or something. It was never really specified.
It made me retch, literally, on more than one occasion. I couldn't bear
driving past it every day. Maybe to that PR person it served a
constructive purpose but to me it was simply an extremely painful
reminder of what had happened to my loved one.
Why is it, do you suppose, that we don't show the mangled corpses of
accident victims at wakes and funerals? Or the bullet-ridden bodies of
victims of drive-by shootings?
Most of us don't need that to understand how real death is.
You really think most people don't understand that John was a real
person?
What benefit does Yoko obtain from publicly displaying bloody clothing?
Sorry, but to me this comes across as Yoko seeking attention and
creating controversy for it's own sake, not to mention supplying the
anti-Yoko contingent both in RMB and in the world generally with enough
fodder to keep them going for the next ten years.
Yoko can, of course, do as she pleases. I don't have to like it, and I
have the right to question her judgement.
BlackMonk
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ROCdnSaqP7nZ-JLX...@supernews.com...
>
> You really think most people don't understand that John was a real
> person?
>
I don't know about "most," but I'd say there's a substantial number who
don't. Look at the people here who pretend that they know what John was
really like or what was best for him in his personal life. They're not
talking about John, the person who they never met, they're talking about
John, the character in the narrative they've created in their minds. How
many people think their feelings are comprable to what Yoko or Sean felt at
the death of John, the husband and father, because they were saddened at the
death of John, the rock singer/songwriter whose music they liked?
> What benefit does Yoko obtain from publicly displaying bloody clothing?
>
You'd have to ask her. Catharsis, maybe? Maybe she felt like it was
something that had to be said? Maybe she thinks making John's death part of
a cause gives it meaning instead of just being a pointless act of violence?
Magnus Pyke
> On May 16, 2:48 pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "BLACKPOOLJIMMY" <Blackpoolji...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:8b7c342d-5b28-40e4...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > . . . He was killed. People are offended by the
>
> > > glasses and the blood? John had to stomach a lot more.”- Hide quoted
> > > text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > < So we should go to a show, showing bloody bits to remind us of the
> > tragic night? <
>
> > Do you think all art should only be pretty and reassuring?
>
> > You don't have to go, or even like it, but it's a valid reason for the
> > piece. If you ever have a husband shot to death, you can reflect that event
> > artistically however you choose and Yoko won't have any right to
> > second-guess you, either.
>
> > I suppose you could say that this isn't art, it's just an exhibit about his
> > life, but then isn't the end of his life a valid part of the exhibit?
>
> the people in their lives for inspiration...like it's okay if it's for
> art.
>
> I'm not specifically talking about Yoko, but your comment reminded me
> of this state of mind. I hadn't thought of it as a "piece" before
> reading it.
>
> It's a cold POV in a sense. Songwriters are often say they get
> themselves into heartache situations just for material. There's an
> inherent detachment not that far removed from someone seeing his
> murder as just part of the Beatle legend.
>
> As to whether she sees it that way, who can say. I suppose the
> criterion would be whether her own piece still has the power to make
> her sick.
1) It's not an art piece, nor was it intended to be one.
2) His clothes aren't on display - just the brown bag.
AllaBest
>
> 1) It's not an art piece, nor was it intended to be one.
> 2) His clothes aren't on display - just the brown bag.
Oh, I get it!
Bagism.
Fattuchus
> On May 16, 2:48 pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:8b7c342d-5b28-40e4...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> > . . . He was killed. People are offended by the
>
> > > glasses and the blood? John had to stomach a lot more.”- Hide quoted
> > > text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > < So we should go to a show, showing bloody bits to remind us of the
> > tragic night? <
>
> > Do you think all art should only be pretty and reassuring?
>
> > You don't have to go, or even like it, but it's a valid reason for the
> > piece. If you ever have a husband shot to death, you can reflect that event
> > artistically however you choose and Yoko won't have any right to
> > second-guess you, either.
>
> > I suppose you could say that this isn't art, it's just an exhibit about his
> > life, but then isn't the end of his life a valid part of the exhibit?
>
> the people in their lives for inspiration...like it's okay if it's for
> art.
>
> I'm not specifically talking about Yoko, but your comment reminded me
> of this state of mind. I hadn't thought of it as a "piece" before
> reading it.
I'm not so sure John's clothes would be on display as "art." This is
a museum at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame . . . . I see it more as a
historical exhibit or an exhibit of memorabilia, not art.
>
> It's a cold POV in a sense. Songwriters are often say they get
> themselves into heartache situations just for material. There's an
> inherent detachment not that far removed from someone seeing his
> murder as just part of the Beatle legend.
>
> As to whether she sees it that way, who can say. I suppose the
> criterion would be whether her own piece still has the power to make
> her sick.
All valid points. But in my opinion, the time for Yoko to really care
for John was when he was alive. And the fact is, she was cold toward
him, manipulative, etc.
Doug McDougal, her security person, told Yoko to have security guards
traveling with J & Y but she refused, reportedly because she wanted to
sell more records. Well, after December 8, she sure got the chance to
sell more records.
Fattuchus
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ROCdnSaqP7nZ-JLX...@supernews.com...
>
>
>
> > You really think most people don't understand that John was a real
> > person?
>
> I don't know about "most," but I'd say there's a substantial number who
> don't. Look at the people here who pretend that they know what John was
> really like or what was best for him in his personal life. They're not
> talking about John, the person who they never met, they're talking about
> John, the character in the narrative they've created in their minds. How
> many people think their feelings are comprable to what Yoko or Sean felt at
> the death of John, the husband and father, because they were saddened at the
> death of John, the rock singer/songwriter whose music they liked?
>
> > What benefit does Yoko obtain from publicly displaying bloody clothing?
>
> You'd have to ask her. Catharsis, maybe?
Oh, pleeeeezzee.
Fattuchus
Two points!
Actually, since some people are discussing "art," I wonder if the urn
hold John's remains is "artsy."
What type of urn does an "artist" order to inter her husband?
Fattuchus
>
> Here's Yoko on the exact subject:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrSSDQOcVnQ
Yoko looks like she is having fun, basking in the spotlight.
Too bad she didn't talk about how her new boyfriend Havadtoy
"comforted her" soon after John's death.
Magnus Pyke
The Walrus was Danny
> "I wanted the whole world to be reminded of what happened. People are
> offended by the glasses and the blood?
I don't think people are offended by the glasses...it's just when
they're used on the front of LP packaging in a bid to sell them that's
the problem.
Danny
Frank from Deeeetroit
> The New York City Annex of the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame has
> collaborated with Yoko Ono to open an exhibit featuring the effects of
> the late, great John Lennon, including his piano, the "New York City"
> t-shirt he made famous... and a paper bag containing the bloody
> clothes from the night he was shot to death. "It was hard to include,"
> Ono told the AP. "And I thought it might be criticized as well."
> Ono says she made the decision because she wants people to see
> the effects of gun violence, but I dunno, Mixers: Aren't we all pretty
> clear on what guns do? What do you think? Is this a legitimate
> opportunity for education and reflection, or just further
> the right decision in trotting these intimate artifacts out? Or is it
> time to put poor John to rest already? And will you be attending the
> exhibit?
>
> http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/05/john-lennons-bl.html
Yoko,
Why don't you include John's autopsy photos next to the bag of
clothes, in between the bag of clothes and a copy of the National
Enquirer with John's morgue photo on the the cover for the full shock
effect. Let the poor guy rest in peace.
If you want to see gun violence, watch the first 25 minutes of "Saving
Private Ryan" on a big Hi-Def TV. The only thing one will miss is the
odor of blood, gun powder, and blood being spattered on the viewer.
BlackMonk
"Fattuchus" <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0fded268-6fcb-459b...@o20g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
< Oh, pleeeeezzee. >
Thank you for being a perfect illustration of the type of person who thinks
of John as a character from the story written in her own head, rather than a
real person.
You know, John was murdered by someone like you, not someone like Yoko.
Think about it.
Dale Houstman
murdered by someone like you, not someone like Yoko" is the sort of
person who would murder John Lennon. Stupid statement? You bet - but no
more stupid than your statement.
At any rate, the notion that Yoko is NOT the sort of person who is
driven by delusion, self-involvement, and a need to justify her
existence by the exploitation of others is - frankly - not a provable
supposition. Quite the opposite as far as I'm concerned.
As for Yoko's latest "art idea" - it's neither here nor there for me. If
she wants to do it fine. I think it's pretty much in line with most of
her "ideas" - lame and somewhat self-promotional. As to what benefit she
might accrue from it: attention comes to mind.
dmh
BlackMonk
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:_7CdnRDOz8_vgI3X...@skypoint.com...
Only to someone incapable of understanding that John Lennon was murdered by
someone who didn't see him as a real person. Fatt is also incapable of
seeing him as a real person.
> At any rate, the notion that Yoko is NOT the sort of person who is driven
> by delusion, self-involvement, and a need to justify her existence by the
> exploitation of others is - frankly - not a provable supposition. Quite
> the opposite as far as I'm concerned.
>
That's a pretty stupid statement in itself.
Can you prove that you're not driven by delusion, self-involvement and a
need to justify your existence?
Mackenzie
>
What is wrong with being comforted?
who?
What in the world are you talking about? What does a lack of
security guards have to do with selling more records?
Well, after December 8, she sure got the chance to
> sell more records.
Maybe at first, but with John no longer alive to help promote
her, she was on her own, and the public wasn't too interested
in buying her music, right?
The Walrus was Danny
> That's a pretty stupid statement in itself.
>
> Can you prove that you're not driven by delusion, self-involvement and a
Intestines boy is back, twisting and a turning. Answering one question
with another, tieing the discussions into bloody knots all for the
sake of defending YO. What a twat.
Danny
Fattuchus
wrote:
Exactly.
I was rereading Fred's wonderful book the other day. According to
that book, Yoko told Fred just a couple of days after John died that
she was planning to release her own album. That conniving money
making mind of hers was already in action, and John's ashes hadn't
even cooled yet.
Fattuchus
wrote:
> On May 16, 12:21 pm, AllaBest <bip_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The New York City Annex of the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame has
> > collaborated with Yoko Ono to open an exhibit featuring the effects of
> > the late, great John Lennon, including his piano, the "New York City"
> > t-shirt he made famous... and a paper bag containing the bloody
> > clothes from the night he was shot to death. "It was hard to include,"
> > Ono told the AP. "And I thought it might be criticized as well."
> > Ono says she made the decision because she wants people to see
> > the effects of gun violence, but I dunno, Mixers: Aren't we all pretty
> > clear on what guns do? What do you think? Is this a legitimate
> > opportunity for education and reflection, or just further
> > capitalization on the tragic murder of a talented man? Is Yoko making
> > the right decision in trotting these intimate artifacts out? Or is it
> > time to put poor John to rest already? And will you be attending the
> > exhibit?
>
> >http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/05/john-lennons-bl.html
>
> Yoko,
>
> Why don't you include John's autopsy photos next to the bag of
> clothes, in between the bag of clothes and a copy of the National
> Enquirer with John's morgue photo on the the cover for the full shock
> effect.
Maybe she is saving that for her next album.
Fattuchus
> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are sick.
Fattuchus
> BlackMonk wrote:
> > "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
We agree on something . . . . I think.
>
> As for Yoko's latest "art idea" - it's neither here nor there for me. If
> she wants to do it fine. I think it's pretty much in line with most of
> her "ideas" - lame and somewhat self-promotional. As to what benefit she
> might accrue from it: attention comes to mind.
>
> dmh-
Another good post. However I want to point out I don't think this
exhibit is an art exhibit.
Fattuchus
> "Dale Houstman" <d...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
>
> news:_7CdnRDOz8_vgI3X...@skypoint.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > BlackMonk wrote:
> >> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I see John as a real person. A real person who was emotionally weak,
flawed, needy, gullible and deeply in love. Indeed, I am very
interested in John the real person and that is why I read so many
biographies, interviews, etc.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nothing wrong. I was being a bit sarcastic. Havadtoy was her live in
boyfriend, partner, lover, Sean's step dad, etc. for 20 years. He
moved in almost immediately after John died. Who knows . . . . there
may have been a romanctic interest before John died.
My point is immediately after John died Yoko played the widow card to
the hilt for years, at the same time she and Havadtoy were sexing it
up. Depending on which source you read, some say they became
boyfriend/girlfriend before John's death or within a few days
afterward. Those who are less harsh say she took a few weeks. In
either event, IMO there is something "sick" about a grieving widow
taking on a new live in lover a mere month or two after her hubbie is
shot dead . . . . Wouldn't you agree?
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
IMO several things happened as a direct result of John's death:
The demand for all things Lennon sky rocketed. John's records (such as
his album with Yoko, Double Fantasy) flew off the store shelves.
There were great demands for Lennon interviews, memorabilia, music,
drawings, etc. And guess who held the keys to the kingdom and stood
to benefit the most from all the attention?
Secondly, Yoko become the Teflon Widow overnight. Critics and members
of the public who had previously hurled insults and treated her badly
were now courting her on bended knee. Why? Well, first they
recognized that Yoko was now very powerful, having inherited great
wealth and power over the Lennon estate. Second, she was now a
forlorn, sympathetic figure, and was able to change her public image
in the minds of many (such as some people here) from the dominating,
disrespectful wife that she was to the pitiful widow, the one who was
beyond reproach since, after all, Johnwasdead, JohnlovedYoko,
thereforeweallshouldfeel sorryforher.
BlackMonk
< You are sick.
I have had a cold recently. You, however, are obsessive and have trouble
differentiating reality from fantasy.
BlackMonk
Watch this. This is Fatt's favorite bit of rhetorical dishonesty.
First, she takes an established fact. There was, at some point, a
relationship between Yoko and Sam. No one here knows when the romantic part
of it began. Maybe in January, 1981, maybe in January, 1991, but there was a
romantic part at some point. (We'll live aside her implication that every
aspect of that relationship existed for 20 years, even though there's no
reason to assume that's true.)
Second, she suggests the possiblity that they may have had a relationship
before John died.
From now on, she'll pretend that her second suggestion is a proven fact
because the first part is undisputedly true, even though, as I said, the
implication she derived from it is very possible incorrect.
who?
Right, but it would have happened anyway, if John had not been with
Yoko.
> There were great demands for Lennon interviews, memorabilia, music,
> drawings, etc. And guess who held the keys to the kingdom and stood
> to benefit the most from all the attention?
Yoko, but she also not only gave us all those outtakes, she also had
some
of his songs..remastered, and remixed, and they sound excellent. I
would
give anything to hear George and Paul's solo output, given the same
treatment, and what is wrong with her promoting John's music?
>
> Secondly, Yoko become the Teflon Widow overnight. Critics and members
> of the public who had previously hurled insults and treated her badly
> were now courting her on bended knee.
I don't believe this to be true. Who are these people you are speaking
of? I've never read nor heard anything about it.
Why? Well, first they
> recognized that Yoko was now very powerful, having inherited great
> wealth and power over the Lennon estate.
But, it doesn't change the fact that those who had a dislike for
Yoko's
music when John was still alive, will continue to have a dislike for
her music
30 years after his death, no matter how powerful she is, right?
Second, she was now a
> forlorn, sympathetic figure, and was able to change her public image
> in the minds of many (such as some people here) from the dominating,
> disrespectful wife that she was to the pitiful widow, the one who was
> beyond reproach since, after all, Johnwasdead, JohnlovedYoko,
> thereforeweallshouldfeel sorryforher.
I just don't agree with you. Other than people feeling sorry for her
cause she lost her husband, what else is there to feel sorry for
her about? Actually when you say the above, you are giving her
the power that you don't want her to have. I guess it's time to
pull out one of my books..and quote part of it, so you'll understand
what I'm talking about.
BlackMonk
On May 17, 3:12 am, The Walrus was Danny <dannyisthewal...@tesco.net>
wrote:
> > "I wanted the whole world to be reminded of what happened. People are
> > offended by the glasses and the blood?
>
> I don't think people are offended by the glasses...it's just when
> they're used on the front of LP packaging in a bid to sell them that's
> the problem.
>
> Danny
< Exactly. >
Neither of you have ever been able to explain just how putting John's
glasses, bloody or otherwise, on the cover was supposed to sell the album,
yet that hasn't stopped you from repeatedly treating your assertion of it as
fact.
Typical.
BlackMonk
"who?" <yourimag...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:08d8dc3a-f204-4f8c...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
< I just don't agree with you. Other than people feeling sorry for her
cause she lost her husband, what else is there to feel sorry for
her about? >
Having stalkers like Fatt?
.
F Parella
> � � � The New York City Annex of the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame has
> collaborated with Yoko Ono to open an exhibit featuring the effects of
> the late, great John Lennon, including his piano, the "New York City"
> t-shirt he made famous... and a paper bag containing the bloody
> clothes from the night he was shot to death. "It was hard to include,"
> Ono told the AP. "And I thought it might be criticized as well."
> � � �Ono says she made the decision because she wants people to see
> the effects of gun violence, but I dunno, Mixers: Aren't we all pretty
> clear on what guns do? What do you think? Is this a legitimate
> opportunity for education and reflection, or just further
> capitalization on the tragic murder of a talented man? Is Yoko making
> the right decision in trotting these intimate artifacts out? Or is it
> time to put poor John to rest already? And will you be attending the
> exhibit?
>
> http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/05/john-lennons-bl.html
Ono sure loves publicly displaying Lennon's blood-spattered remnants;
there's something weird and fetishistic about it. She has repeatedly
done things with his clothes. And then there's the "Season of Glass"
album cover, which features Lennon's blood-stained glasses. When a
reporter asked her why she did that, Ono said it was to let people
know that Lennon was killed. As if anyone had forgotten. What a
crass, disgusting news-hog Ono is.
F Parella
> On May 16, 12:21 pm, AllaBest <bip_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The New York City Annex of the Rock n' Roll Hall of Fame has
> > collaborated with Yoko Ono to open an exhibit featuring the effects of
> > the late, great John Lennon, including his piano, the "New York City"
> > t-shirt he made famous... and a paper bag containing the bloody
> > clothes from the night he was shot to death. "It was hard to include,"
> > Ono told the AP. "And I thought it might be criticized as well."
> > Ono says she made the decision because she wants people to see
> > the effects of gun violence, but I dunno, Mixers: Aren't we all pretty
> > clear on what guns do? What do you think? Is this a legitimate
> > opportunity for education and reflection, or just further
> > capitalization on the tragic murder of a talented man? Is Yoko making
> > the right decision in trotting these intimate artifacts out? Or is it
> > time to put poor John to rest already? And will you be attending the
> > exhibit?
>
> >http://music-mix.ew.com/2009/05/john-lennons-bl.html
>
This is such BS. Who had forgotten?
> People are
> offended by the glasses and the blood? The glasses are a tiny part of
> what happened. If people can’t stomach the glasses, I’m sorry. There
> was a dead body. There was blood. His whole body was bloody . . .
> That’s the reality . . . He was killed. People are offended by the
> glasses and the blood? John had to stomach a lot more.”- Hide quoted text -
Yoko is the world's dumbest rationalizer. A lot of the men in her and
Havadtoy's inner circle died in the 80s - yet she did not turn *their*
remains into "art" or album covers. No; Yoko is once again using
Lennon to generate publicity. In death, as in life, Lennon is for Ono
a mere source of publicity and money.
BlackMonk
< I see John as a real person. >
You probably think you do. However, every post you make on the subject
belies that claim.
who?
Yoko has enough money, and I for one...love it that she is promoting
John's music, and keeping his spirit alive. Who will promote John's
music after she's no longer with us? Julian? No way. Sean?
I doubt it. Paul? He's about 8 years younger than Yoko. I don't
agree with those bloody clothes. She should have been like
Jackie Kennedy...and put something in writing, to say those
clothes will not be displayed for 75 years. Any thoughts?
F Parella
Far more than any normal person would need (or even want), but the
word "enough" isn't in Ono's vocabulary. She's a hoarder.
> and I for one...love it that she is promoting
> John's music, and keeping his spirit alive.
Or at least keeping his bloody articles on display.
> Who will promote John's music after she's no longer with us?
She has never really promoted his music. In fact, Yoko used to insist
to her lover David Spinozza that she was the "real songwriter" among
herself and John. She has made similar comments to her longtime tarot
card reader John Green, telling him that her DF songs - those
pathetic, miserable scraps - were better than Lennon's. And when
Lennon was at the top of the album and singles charts in 1974, Ono
told May Pang that this success was "just hype." Yoko is resentful of
Lennon's musical and commercial success. Even to the press, Ono has
occasionally compared her shoddy garbage favorably to Lennon's and the
Beatles' work.
Yoko adds nothing positive to Lennon's music or his memory. The fans
will remember his music. We don't need any "assistance" from the
loathesome parasite.
Julian? No way. Sean?
> I doubt it. Paul? He's about 8 years younger than Yoko. I don't
> agree with those bloody clothes. She should have been like
> Jackie Kennedy...and put something in writing, to say those
> clothes will not be displayed for 75 years. Any thoughts?- Hide quoted text -
Fattuchus
You seem to find it hard to disagree with someone by addressing the
issues. Instead you resort to personal attacks. You've done this many
times with me.
Fattuchus
> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It depends on which source one reads. But Sam and Yoko were
photographed in September 1981 walking lovingly arm in arm in the
park, so it clearly started in or before September 1981. And Paul
McCartney (you remember him??) even commented that Yoko's new romance
seemed very soon after John's death. I can't recall his exact
quote . . . . something to do with waiting less than a year not being
right.
(We'll live aside her implication that every
> aspect of that relationship existed for 20 years, even though there's no
> reason to assume that's true.)
They lived together for 20 years. That's just an established fact
based on eyewitness accounts and statements from Yoko and Sam.
Fattuchus
> "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
I am not a stalker. You seem to be stalking me.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
John was her best acquisition.
Fattuchus
I am pleased that someone is promoting John's music, art, poetry, etc.
and keeping his spirit alive. I just feel it is macabre that someone
who cheated on him, lied to him, threw him out of the house, stated "I
am tired of being Mrs. Lennon", wanted to abort his child, claimed to
be the real composer in the family (as if John's songwriting was
inferior), etc. should be the one now in control of his estate and
promoting him and benefiting from his death more than anyone.
Fattuchus
When John was alive, Yoko was resentful of John's success and blamed
the public's failure to like her music or art on John and/or the
Beatles. She essentially admitted this in various statements she
issued over the years. In her Playboy interview Yoko stated she had
felt so strongly about it, she was willing to endanger her marriage
and threw John out of house!
After John died she realized the boatload of money she could make from
his music and Beatles music and started "singing" a different tune.
All of a sudden, Yoko became a Beatle fan, promoting Beatles music
(such as for the Love show).
BlackMonk
It's ironic that you make that complaint only when someone disagrees with
you, yet you have no objection to making personal attacks yourself, nor with
allying yourself to someone else while that person is making such attacks.
However, "obsessive" and "difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy"
are observations based on your behavior here.
BlackMonk
You know, I've walked arm in arm with others without having a sexual, or
even romantic relationship with them.
< And Paul
McCartney (you remember him??) even commented that Yoko's new romance
seemed very soon after John's death. I can't recall his exact
quote . . . . something to do with waiting less than a year not being
right. >
I wonder if he's rethought that, given his own history after Linda died.
(We'll live aside her implication that every
> aspect of that relationship existed for 20 years, even though there's no
> reason to assume that's true.)
< They lived together for 20 years. That's just an established fact
based on eyewitness accounts and statements from Yoko and Sam. >
Non sequitur. "Living together" (which in itself is misleading) doesn't mean
that every aspect of the relationship was in play for all 20 years, which
was the assertion in question.
BlackMonk
Your obsession with Yoko shows differently.
>You seem to be stalking me.
I post to two newsgroups. You've started posting to both of them after me.
It seems that you're not clear on the definition of "stalking."
Fattuchus
Not true. I have had debates with many different people . . . I
rarely resort to personal attacks. I'm not perfect I admit, and I've
slipped a few times, but I generally take the high road.
For some reason, you've attacked me personally many times as part of
the debate.
Fattuchus
I'm convinced based on all I've read that Sam and Yoko were having a
clear romantic relationship by or before September 1981. If you don't
want to believe it, that is your choice.
>
> < And Paul
> McCartney (you remember him??) even commented that Yoko's new romance
> seemed very soon after John's death. I can't recall his exact
> quote . . . . something to do with waiting less than a year not being
> right. >
>
> I wonder if he's rethought that, given his own history after Linda died.
He waited at least a year, didn't he?
Further, IIRC, when Linda died, even though Paul is a known
workaholic, he did not immediate go into the studio to work on
material to make a buck from her death. He went through a period of
mourning. Yes, Paul did honor her later in speeches, music etc., but
everything I've read indicates he was truly overcome with grief.
Yoko on the other hand . . . . . . . .
Fattuchus
> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e1d3a3ca-d295-45c7...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 2:45 pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> >news:08d8dc3a-f204-4f8c...@l32g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > < I just don't agree with you. Other than people feeling sorry for her
> > cause she lost her husband, what else is there to feel sorry for
> > her about? >
>
> > Having stalkers like Fatt?
>
> > .
> >I am not a stalker.
>
> Your obsession with Yoko shows differently.
>
> >You seem to be stalking me.
>
> I post to two newsgroups. You've started posting to both of them after me.
One deals with the Beatles, the other with Jewish issues.
Wow . . . what a coincidence that we post to two of the same groups.
(sarcasm)
You were gone for quite a while . . . . I did not leave. Then you came
back, and began attacking me.
>
> It seems that you're not clear on the definition of "stalking."
You seem to be the one who is confused.
BlackMonk
No, you don't. Even when you don't personally attack others, you tend to
applaud when someone else attacks them. At best, you turn a blind eye to
those attacks.
BlackMonk
Of course, you're "convinced." You would be. However, your being convinced
of something doesn't make it an established fact, or even a likely fact.
>
> < And Paul
> McCartney (you remember him??) even commented that Yoko's new romance
> seemed very soon after John's death. I can't recall his exact
> quote . . . . something to do with waiting less than a year not being
> right. >
>
> I wonder if he's rethought that, given his own history after Linda died.
> He waited at least a year, didn't he?
Right, those few months make all the difference and that's the only thing
you're concerned about. In the words of Paul McCartney, pull the other one,
it's got bells on it.
>Further, IIRC, when Linda died, even though Paul is a known
workaholic, he did not immediate go into the studio to work on
material to make a buck from her death.
Again, you treat your personal interpretation as fact.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
My posts are there for all to read. I think I'm quite civil and I'm
generally civil to you.
As far as turning a blind eye, I've learned from experience it is
best to stay out of flame wars. I've said many, many times I don't
like them and I wish people would be civil to each other. My
statements don't work.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sigh.
I give up.
F Parella
Ono went on a trip with Havadtoy to his native country of Hungary in
June of 1981. And they were photographed out together in the late
70s.
BlackMonk
The thing is, you don't stay out. You respond approvingly to posts that make
personal attacks. The reasonable conclusion is that the personal attacks
don't bother you too much and you either tacitly approve of them or you find
them unimportant enough to ignore.
F Parella
I have to admit, Ono got "Season of Glass" - the one with John's
bloody glasses on the cover - out very quickly. It received a ton of
media coverage (Ono was everywhere), but didn't sell too well, even
with all the gimmickry. And that was followed by several other
albums, and finally the "Star Peace" world tour of the 1980s. Ono was
also doing a lot of travel with Sam Havadtoy in this period. Not that
life was all fun and games for Ono once Lennon was out of the way.
"Double Fantasy" producer Jack Douglas filed a lawsuit against her -
and won.
AllaBest
My feelings are that you are a wonderful person! You take a lot of
abuse sometimes, but never are abusive in response.
I like you very, very much, indeed.
who?
Prove it, cause you can't.
>
> > and I for one...love it that she is promoting
> > John's music, and keeping his spirit alive.
>
> Or at least keeping his bloody articles on display.
>
> > Who will promote John's music after she's no longer with us?
>
> She has never really promoted his music.
Yes she has, and I've already explained it.
In fact, Yoko used to insist
> to her lover David Spinozza that she was the "real songwriter" among
> herself and John.
Big deal. Most musicians have inflated ego's. I know. I've been
though
the entire thing.
She has made similar comments to her longtime tarot
> card reader John Green, telling him that her DF songs - those
> pathetic, miserable scraps - were better than Lennon's. And when
> Lennon was at the top of the album and singles charts in 1974, Ono
> told May Pang that this success was "just hype." Yoko is resentful of
> Lennon's musical and commercial success. Even to the press, Ono has
> occasionally compared her shoddy garbage favorably to Lennon's and the
> Beatles' work.
Ok, chalk that up to insecurity. The guitarist of "mountain" insisted
he was
better than Eric Clapton too, over 30 years ago.
>
> Yoko adds nothing positive to Lennon's music or his memory. The fans
> will remember his music. We don't need any "assistance" from the
> loathesome parasite.
I never said anything about Yoko adding to his memory..but she will
just cause she was married to John.
Magnus Pyke
> You take a lot of abuse sometimes, but never are abusive in response.
Right. She saves her abuse for people who aren't here. How brave of
her.
BlackMonk
"who?" <yourimag...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2aa59a1a-2b74-4258...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
She has made similar comments to her longtime tarot
> card reader John Green, telling him that her DF songs - those
> pathetic, miserable scraps - were better than Lennon's. And when
> Lennon was at the top of the album and singles charts in 1974, Ono
> told May Pang that this success was "just hype." Yoko is resentful of
> Lennon's musical and commercial success. Even to the press, Ono has
> occasionally compared her shoddy garbage favorably to Lennon's and the
> Beatles' work.
> Ok, chalk that up to insecurity. The guitarist of "mountain" insisted
he was
better than Eric Clapton too, over 30 years ago.
It's not just insecurity. Anyone who doesn't believe that they have
something to offer that no one else does or that they're as good as anyone
else around at what they do has no business on a stage or in a recording
studio.
You don't produce greatness but trying to do something that's "ok, but not
as good as The Beatles," you produce greatness by trying to do something
that's better than anything done before.
who?
> "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
I couldn't agree more....although most of the music that I consider
"great" is instrumental music mostly..and nowhere close to the
styles of what the Beatles came up with. I should say that I have
some music that I haven't shared with you, that is kind of like
the Beatles music..and maybe just as good, but it's about
1 or 2 tracks per Disc. There is so much music out there
today..that you really have to look hard for it, to find it.
I get sleepy just weeding though all the possibilities. :-)
F Parella
> "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
Where do you get off making pronouncements like these? You - a Yoko
Ono worshiper - considers himself an expert on the subject of
producing greatness?!? Your spelling certainly isn't great. And your
psychotic religious ravings aren't, either. Then there was that post
a while back where you told a member of this group to slash his wrists
(a request very much at odds with your beloved Torah's stance on
suicide). And what about that cover of a Beatles song you submitted?
The one with the high-pitched voice and the mewling aged cat?
Are you really one to preach about how greatness is produced?
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:_7CdnRDOz8_vgI3X...@skypoint.com...
>> BlackMonk wrote:
>>> "Fattuchus" <fatt...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> On May 16, 9:49 pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:ROCdnSaqP7nZ-JLX...@supernews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You really think most people don't understand that John was a real
>>>>> person?
>>>> I don't know about "most," but I'd say there's a substantial number who
>>>> don't. Look at the people here who pretend that they know what John was
>>>> really like or what was best for him in his personal life. They're not
>>>> talking about John, the person who they never met, they're talking about
>>>> John, the character in the narrative they've created in their minds. How
>>>> many people think their feelings are comprable to what Yoko or Sean felt
>>>> at
>>>> the death of John, the husband and father, because they were saddened at
>>>> the
>>>> death of John, the rock singer/songwriter whose music they liked?
>>>>
>>>>> What benefit does Yoko obtain from publicly displaying bloody clothing?
>>>> You'd have to ask her. Catharsis, maybe?
>>>
>>> < Oh, pleeeeezzee. >
>>>
>>> Thank you for being a perfect illustration of the type of person who
>>> thinks of John as a character from the story written in her own head,
>>> rather than a real person.
>>>
>>> You know, John was murdered by someone like you, not someone like Yoko.
>>> Think about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> by someone like you, not someone like Yoko" is the sort of person who
>> would murder John Lennon. Stupid statement? You bet - but no more stupid
>> than your statement.
>>
>
> Only to someone incapable of understanding that John Lennon was murdered by
> someone who didn't see him as a real person. Fatt is also incapable of
> seeing him as a real person.
Maybe so - but that happens to be true of millions upon millions of
people who liked the Beatles, but know nothing of them as people. The
difference between John's murderer and Fatt (and most everyone else) is
not whether they appreciated John as a "real person" (who knows how much
projection exists in most of our comprehensions of people unmet?) but
that Chapman was certifiably insane. So - no matter what one thinks of
Fatt (and I think Fatt's a relatively pointless "thinker") to say that
Fatt is like John's murderer is essentially pretty stupid.
>
>> At any rate, the notion that Yoko is NOT the sort of person who is driven
>> by delusion, self-involvement, and a need to justify her existence by the
>> exploitation of others is - frankly - not a provable supposition. Quite
>> the opposite as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>
> That's a pretty stupid statement in itself.
No: I am clearly exressing a personal opinion, and one not unshared by
many. You are plainly comparing Fatt to a killer via a connection so
tenuous that it is meaningless except as a sort of desperate attempt at
insult.
>
> Can you prove that you're not driven by delusion, self-involvement and a
> need to justify your existence?
>
No - I cannot. But that is the point I was trying to make about you, and
anyone who would make such rather silly little comparisons. Thanks for
making it for me...
dmh
Magnus Pyke
> BlackMonk wrote:
> > "Dale Houstman" <d...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> >news:_7CdnRDOz8_vgI3X...@skypoint.com...
> >> BlackMonk wrote:
> >>> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
< cue obligatory Fattass 'thank you for standing up for me' post>
who?
> On May 17, 7:14 pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@email.msn.com> wrote And what about that cover of a Beatles song you submitted?
> The one with the high-pitched voice and the mewling aged cat?
Hey, FP. Ever heard the old saying that if you don't have anything
nice to say to somebody, don't say it at all? This is a personal
attack, and unnecessary.
Fattuchus
Aww, thank you very much. (starts to blush)
Fattuchus
For the most part, Yoko's singing, composing, musical abilities, etc.
are quite awful so she has little to back up that huge ego of hers.
Secondly, and more importantly, assuming I agree with your statement
and Yoko is entitled to her ego, don't you find it "sick" that she
uses her big ego to attack her HUSBAND? The man who loved her more
than anything? The man who sacrificed his career for her and was
willing to play the fool in front of the whole world? The man who was
her biggest fan and biggest promoter?
Not only that, Yoko did not merely say, "I am a better composer than
my husband" which would be sick enough. She said, "I am the real
composer in the family" as if John's work was nothing. That's beyond
ego. A statement like that IMO shows contempt and a lack of
appreciation for John and his work.
Can you imagine for one second Heather Mills making a statement, "I'm
the real composer in the family" when she was married to Paul? The
world would have howled.
Fattuchus
> >news:_7CdnRDOz8_vgI3X...@skypoint.com...
> >> BlackMonk wrote:
> >>> "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thanks for your defense . . . . I think.
Fattuchus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Some believe they wed in Hungary.
F Parella
Yes. It was Sam's boyfriend (and Ono's hairdresser) who first made
the claim that Ono and Havadtoy had married in Hungary. Fred Seaman
said that Ono and Havadtoy made no secret of their marriage around the
Dakota, but that Mintz had dissuaded Ono from admitting to it
publicly.
Magnus Pyke
Fattuchus
> On May 17, 7:49 am, Frank from Deeeetroit <dadurwe...@voyager.net>
> wrote:
>
> > a copy of the National Enquirer with John's morgue photo
>
> Yoko put John's morgue photo in the "Woman" video.
I remember that. Another example of her "art" I guess.
BlackMonk
Marilyn was pretty young then. However, she was aged when she died a month
ago.
F Parella has a problem with "high pitched voices." He/she finds them
"effeminate," which shows both his/her ignorance of the use of falsetto
voices in pop and rock, and his/her fear of his/her repressed homosexuality.
F Parella
> "who?" <yourimageunre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>
> news:4bde791c-f6c0-4670...@t11g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> On May 17, 7:29 pm, F Parella <f_pare...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 17, 7:14 pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@email.msn.com> wrote And what
> > about that cover of a Beatles song you submitted?
> > The one with the high-pitched voice and the mewling aged cat?
>
> < Hey, FP. Ever heard the old saying that if you don't have anything
> nice to say to somebody, don't say it at all? This is a personal
> attack, and unnecessary. >
>
> Marilyn was pretty young then. However, she was aged when she died a month
> ago.
>
> F Parella has a problem with "high pitched voices."
Well, yeah, if, for example, they warble freakishly like some whining
mosquito or if they repeatedly hit bad notes.
> He/she finds them
> "effeminate," which shows both his/her ignorance of the use of falsetto
> voices in pop and rock,
And until I heard your effort, I suppose I was ignorant of "the use
of" animal noises in "music."
> and his/her fear of his/her repressed homosexuality.
Oh, sure. This coming from the same floundering fruitcake who accused
me - in the "Yoko on Hitler" thread - of having an "inner
Nazi" (something my Jewish friends have never noticed).
Cool down, Meltdown Monk. You don't want to start telling people to
slash their wrists again (do you?).
who?
> > John's music, and keeping his spirit alive.
>
> and keeping his spirit alive. I just feel it is macabre that someone
> who cheated on him,
When did they happen, and with who? (No not me) :-)
lied to him, threw him out of the house, stated "I
> am tired of being Mrs. Lennon", wanted to abort his child, claimed to
> be the real composer in the family (as if John's songwriting was
> inferior), etc. should be the one now in control of his estate and
> promoting him and benefiting from his death more than anyone.
John didn't seem to mind, when he was alive. I don't see the problem.
who?
> On May 17, 5:05 pm, "BlackMonk" <BlackM...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Fattuchus" <fattuc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > even romantic relationship with them.
>
> I'm convinced based on all I've read that Sam and Yoko were having a
> clear romantic relationship by or before September 1981. If you don't
> want to believe it, that is your choice.
>
>
>
> > < And Paul
> > McCartney (you remember him??) even commented that Yoko's new romance
> > seemed very soon after John's death. I can't recall his exact
> > quote . . . . something to do with waiting less than a year not being
> > right. >
>
> > I wonder if he's rethought that, given his own history after Linda died.
>
> He waited at least a year, didn't he?
>
> Further, IIRC, when Linda died, even though Paul is a known
> workaholic, he did not immediate go into the studio to work on
> material to make a buck from her death. He went through a period of
> mourning. Yes, Paul did honor her later in speeches, music etc., but
> everything I've read indicates he was truly overcome with grief.
>
> Yoko on the other hand . . . . . . . .
What was wrong with Yoko going into the studio after John's death?
How would that be making a buck off John's death? She sang her
own music right?
who?
For what? For making an album?
who?
That's your opinion. Some people like her music.
>
> Secondly, and more importantly, assuming I agree with your statement
> and Yoko is entitled to her ego, don't you find it "sick" that she
> uses her big ego to attack her HUSBAND?
I don't remember saying she is entitled to her ego. Maybe I did?
Anyhow, Not much you can do with someone's ego. They
either have it or they don't.
The man who loved her more
> than anything? The man who sacrificed his career for her and was
> willing to play the fool in front of the whole world? The man who was
> her biggest fan and biggest promoter?
If she said her music was better than his, she probably didn't believe
it, just as the guitarist from "mountain" said he was better than Eric
Clapton. People who believe in themselves, don't brag about their
talents.
> Not only that, Yoko did not merely say, "I am a better composer than
> my husband" which would be sick enough. She said, "I am the real
> composer in the family" as if John's work was nothing. That's beyond
> ego. A statement like that IMO shows contempt and a lack of
> appreciation for John and his work.
But "he" didn't care.
>
> Can you imagine for one second Heather Mills making a statement, "I'm
> the real composer in the family" when she was married to Paul? The
> world would have howled.
I can't imagine the need to stay on this same subject. You can howl as
much as you like about Yoko, but nothing is going to change.
F Parella
IIRC, Jack Douglas contended that Yoko did not pay him his royalties
for DF. He proved his case to the jurors' satisfaction.
Fattuchus
John would have been a fool to not care. He took a lot of disrespect.