Yoko on JL's Sexuality
Nyarlathotep
with Yoko Ono in which she made a few surprising admissions. E.g.,
in 1980, Lennon had told the gullible David Sheff that Yoko had
refused to take him back on certain occasions (during his supposed
"Lost Weekend") because he "wasn't ready yet"; in '81, Yoko admitted
that she didn't return to Lennon because "I was going out with other
people -- several others."
Yoko also admitted that, "I used to say to him, 'I think you're a
closet fag, you know.' Because, when we started to live together,
John would say to me, 'Do you know why I like you? Because you look
like a bloke in drag. You're like a mate.'"
Dr. Gilbert T. Sullivan
Nyarlathotep <nyarla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae12f5f3.0108...@posting.google.com...
> On May 3rd of '81, the *Times of London* printed a lengthy interview
> with Yoko Ono in which she made a few surprising admissions. E.g.,
> refused to take him back on certain occasions (during his supposed
> "Lost Weekend") because he "wasn't ready yet"; in '81, Yoko admitted
> people -- several others."
>
> Yoko also admitted that, "I used to say to him, 'I think you're a
> closet fag, you know.' Because, when we started to live together,
> like a bloke in drag. You're like a mate.'"
Has anybody told Ty about this? He'll be crushed.
Diana
>you're a closet fag, you know.' Because, when we started to
>live together, John would say to me, 'Do you know why I like
>you? Because you look like a bloke in drag. You're like a mate.'"
"You look just like two gurus in drag THINK!"
- - - - - -
http://www.hariscruffs.com
"As a scientist, Throckmorton knew that if he were ever
to break wind in the echo chamber, he would never hear
the end of it."
UsurperTom
more than any other person in John's life?
Tom
CaroJ11
>>you're a closet fag, you know.' Because, when we started to
>>live together, John would say to me, 'Do you know why I like
>>you? Because you look like a bloke in drag. You're like a mate.'"
I'm sure JL only meant he felt comfortable with her, because Yoko acted more
like a friend than a "date," but this brings up something I've wondered about
for some time. Why would Yoko tell this or other like stories about her husband
to a reporter? At the very least such anecdotes could be considered
unflattering.
Of course Bob Wooler would scream "Queer!" when John went off with Brian, a
known homosexual, but other than that, no other allegations were made until
Goldman's book came out with all that nasty info allegedly coming from Marnie
Hair, the employee who supposedly got HER info straight from Yoko. (Some of
Goldman's far-fetched psychobabble came out of his head, but the worst
allegations in his book come from Marnie, as allegedly told to her by Yoko Ono.
And, as far as I know, Yoko's never publically denied any of them. She's only
addressed the heroin issue. McCartney has denied the homosexual allegations,
but he's not the one being discussed here.)
First off, I'm going to assume Marnie was telling the truth about where she got
her information. Marnie might or might not have had a grudge against Yoko, but
she didn't have one against John, so I doubt Marnie would have made up these
nasty tales to disparage JL. Furthermore, I doubt Marnie knew enough detailed
information about the Beatles' private lives for her to make up what is said in
Goldman's account. As far as we know, Marnie Hair was no rabid Beatle fan,
which she'd have to have been to supply the explicit details given in the book.
She claims Yoko told her these things, and I'm convinced she's telling the
truth. Furthermore, Marnie's never publically denied what was printed.
Now, my question is: why would Yoko tell all this to Marnie Hair? Why would a
wife make such allegations against her own husband, even to a trusted friend?
We're talking homosexuality and murder here. And I believe at the time John was
still alive, which would mean Marnie could have gone to the police with her
knowledge. Farfetched? Perhaps. But the psychological element still exists. Why
would a wife say such things? Was Yoko intimating she was terribly frightened
of JL? And, worse, later why would a widow publically disparage her late
husband to the press? Cynthia Lennon has said, "he (JL) was all man." May Pang
told Howard Stern JL was "the best lover I ever had," while her husband sat in
the wings. And there's not one shred of credible evidence linking John to
either Stu's death or a drunken Hamburg sailor's---whatever John may have
thought in his questionable mental state. Why would Yoko tell such things as
truth? Wouldn't it weaken her own position? Any amateur or professional
psychologists out there? (And please, no kill-the-messenger troll posts. Let's
try to have an enlightening discussion here for once, and return to being a
worthwhile newsgroup.) ---CarolJ
Donz5
>Now, my question is: why would Yoko tell all this to Marnie Hair? Why would a
wife make such allegations against her own husband, even to a trusted friend?
I'd first want to verify the quote. Remember -- this is Goldman, a man prone to
creating stories all by his lonesome. And because it originates from Goldman's
book, I don't trust the quotes, regardless of any absence of denials from any
of the parties.
For an example of all this, see corresponding post on the GM/Harrison/Mail
fiction.
Mister Charlie
"CaroJ11" <car...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010803095417...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
The flaw in your entire premise is 'assuming' Marnie is telling the truth.
Mister Charlie
"Donz5" <do...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010803101615...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
Abscence of denial is not proof of truth. The most common way of handling
innuendo and rumors among celebs is to simply ignore ie (not 'dignify it'
with a response).
Just because Yoko does not categorically deny every single piece of crap
written about her or her family does not mean ANYthing.
i need new boots
Hopefully he won't see this. Poor guy's been through enough already.
--
http://extra.newsguy.com/~shpxurnq/joebest.html
My concept album is complete!
UsurperTom
>no other allegations were made until Goldman's book came out
In 1983, Peter Brown, Brian's former lover and the Beatles' personal assistant,
wrote in "The Love You Make" that Brian's love for John was consummated in
Spain. Hunter Davies told Brown that John confessed the affair to him in 1968.
John told Davies that he wanted to see what it's like to "fuck with a guy."
Tom
Mister Charlie
"UsurperTom" <usurp...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010803125255...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
Inflammatory, hearsay, and unprovable.
Transcender
than any other nursery school mom at Sean's day care.
Yoko has denied Marnie Hair the attention she so
despedrately craves. She has consistently gone on
with her own work when it would be so tempting
to sue Giuliano, and before him, the failed biographer
Goldman. If it's just about making monehy off of dead
celebrities, you're dealing with swine the moment you
step into their playground.
John and Yoko loved to tease one another, it was
based in love and friendship and mutual respect.
They were often so wrapped up in each other they
forgot to consider what might be done with their
banter.
Francie (Don't Kill the Messenger, Indeed)
--
"After all, there can be no louder boy-band backlash
than the sound of a boy band backlashing against itself."
(NYTimes/Arts, August 2 2001)
Mister Charlie
"Transcender" <Bubba...@Greenparty.org> wrote in message
news:831111....@news.best1.net...
> Marnie Hair had no more in common with Yoko Ono
> than any other nursery school mom at Sean's day care.
>
> Yoko has denied Marnie Hair the attention she so
> despedrately craves. She has consistently gone on
> with her own work when it would be so tempting
> to sue Giuliano, and before him, the failed biographer
> Goldman. If it's just about making monehy off of dead
> celebrities, you're dealing with swine the moment you
> step into their playground.
>
> John and Yoko loved to tease one another, it was
> based in love and friendship and mutual respect.
> They were often so wrapped up in each other they
> forgot to consider what might be done with their
> banter.
>
Agreed. In fact, the last paragraph says it all quite well.
CaroJ11
>>no other allegations were made until Goldman's book came out
>
>In 1983, Peter Brown, Brian's former lover and the Beatles' personal
>assistant,
>wrote in "The Love You Make" that Brian's love for John was consummated in
Yes, you're correct; Peter Brown did say John said this. And Pete Shotton gave
his version of the tale too. Obviously, I didn't cover all my bases. But that's
beside the point. What Peter Brown or Pete Shotton choose to air publically is
on their own consciences.They weren't married to John, so they lose nothing
either way.
The overall question remains: why would a man's widow perpetuate sordid---or at
the very least unflattering---stories about him? Donz went for
kill-the-messenger, and said one must consider all Marnie Hair's information in
"Lives" to be either erroneous or deliberately distorted by Goldman. I
disagree. I believe Marnie Hair passed on to Goldman exactly what Yoko had told
her, and I cited my reasons in my first post for accepting her information as
valid. My question to the board remains: why bring it up at all? What
psychological edge did or does Yoko gain by saying such things about her
husband in public or private? Wouldn't most refute such tales to the best of
one's ability?---CarolJ
Donz5
>Donz went for
>kill-the-messenger, and said one must consider all Marnie Hair's information
in
>"Lives" to be either erroneous or deliberately distorted by Goldman. I
>disagree.
Yes; when it comes to Goldman, I don't trust anything in his book. His
reputation makes anything he writes -- even if some of it might actually be
factual -- suspect.
Had Marnie Hair told any of this to Ray Coleman, for example, then we'd have a
far more credible author. But we don't. We got Goldman, and you can have him.
Mister Charlie
Yes you did, and you are right...just why _would_Marnie say all those
things?
My question to the board remains: why bring it up at all?
Exactly
What
> psychological edge did or does Yoko gain by saying such things about her
> husband in public or private? Wouldn't most refute such tales to the best
of
> one's ability?---CarolJ
The convential wisdom is for the celeb so sit on it and stonewall. Denials,
especially made in anger or distress, just make more of a story. They hope
the ravenous media just go away. Sometimes they do. Not very often tho.
So NOT saying anything is usually the standard unless pressed by some
extraneous outer force. Yoko did as she has had to do for many years. Not
take on all the tinhorns with whom she has had to deal with. Regular folk
just don't appreciate the constant 24/7 surveillance and recording of one's
life; sometimes for just days, some are for a lifetime. It's not living as
we know it.
>
>
Mister Charlie
Hear, hear.
He was a Ghoulman.
Bob Stahley
Oh, yeah. "Someone said that someone said that someone said" is credible,
but a direct quote "should be taken with a grain of salt."
UTom, you're no better than that editor at the Daily Mail, you know that?
--
__ __
_) _) fabo...@mindspring.com Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
__)__) Tosa, Witzend http://www.gildasclub.org/
Bob Stahley
: (And please, no kill-the-messenger troll posts. Let's
: try to have an enlightening discussion here for once, and return to being a
: worthwhile newsgroup.)
Oh, please! "Enlightening discussion," my ass. It's blatantly clear from
your arbitrary decision to believe Marnie Hare's word over Yoko's that you
just want to smear Yoko Ono's name and character.
You want an "enlightening discussion," do you? Well, before you "just
accept" Marnie Hare's word, you must first determine her credibility.
And for your information, that's already been done and has been reported
here on numerous occasions. There's no more reason to take her word of
events as actual than there is to take Yoko's.
Your decision, therefore, betrays your agenda.
Madam, _you're_ the troll.
CaroJ11
>Your decision, therefore, betrays your agenda.
>
>Madam, _you're_ the troll.
>
No thanks, Bob; I won't play. You've won the game, and, alas, another
discussion is effectively ended with little said beyond the usual name-calling.
I'll let the topic rest here, and gladly take it to an e-mail list. I was truly
interested in valid and opposing points of view on the subject. Some posters
might have offered views I hadn't considered, such as those Charlie brought out
in a previous post, but it's not worth the effort now. You'll say something
nasty back to me, and I'll defend myself, and suddenly it's again toddler-time
in the newsgroup.
For whatever it's worth I have no "agenda." I wouldn't know how to plan such a
silly thing, and wouldn't bother trying.I'm too old for such idiocy. True, I
don't think much of Yoko Ono, but a lively rational debate could be educational
and enjoyable for us all---- if we were ever allowed to have one. ---CarolJ
Nyarlathotep
> Yes, you're correct; Peter Brown did say John said this. And Pete Shotton gave
> his version of the tale too. Obviously, I didn't cover all my bases. But that's
> beside the point. What Peter Brown or Pete Shotton choose to air publically is
> on their own consciences.They weren't married to John, so they lose nothing
> either way.
>
> The overall question remains: why would a man's widow perpetuate sordid---or at
> the very least unflattering---stories about him? Donz went for
> kill-the-messenger, and said one must consider all Marnie Hair's information in
> "Lives" to be either erroneous or deliberately distorted by Goldman. I
> disagree. I believe Marnie Hair passed on to Goldman exactly what Yoko had told
> her, and I cited my reasons in my first post for accepting her information as
> valid. My question to the board remains: why bring it up at all? What
> psychological edge did or does Yoko gain by saying such things about her
> husband in public or private? Wouldn't most refute such tales to the best of
> one's ability?---CarolJ
Thanks for your excellent earlier post, Carol, and for raising
the interesting question of why Ono would say these things about
Lennon.
In the *Times of London* article (in which Ono says she would
call Lennon a "closet fag"), Ono goes on quite a bit about Lennon's
failings -- specifically, his insecurities, his extreme jealousy, etc.
Ono also talks about JL's youthful masturbatory habits. I suspect
that many a wondrous RMBer would say that Yoko was merely trying to
remind JL's fans that he was human (just as she supposedly used
Lennon's bloody glasses on that album cover to remind the fans that he
had been killed). It looks to me as if she was intent on belittling
Lennon. Ono resented the success Lennon had achieved while he was
alive (e.g., telling David Spinozza that *she* was the greater
songwriter, or telling May Pang that Lennon's success w/*Walls and
Bridges* was due to "hype"); perhaps, with Lennon's death, and the
Lennon-worship that accompanied it, this resentment intensified,
compelling Ono to do her utmost to belittle the man in public.
What do *you* think, Carol?
UsurperTom
>I believe Marnie Hair passed on to Goldman exactly what Yoko had told
>her, and I cited my reasons in my first post for accepting her information as
valid.
Arlene Reckson, a personal assistant of Yoko's, said that Yoko told her that
John kicked her in the stomach during one of her pregnancies.
Tom
UsurperTom
>"Someone said that someone said that someone said" is credible,
>but a direct quote "should be taken with a grain of salt."
I didn't endorse the validity of Brown's account, you dim wit!
Tom
UsurperTom
>You'll say something
>nasty back to me, and I'll defend myself, and suddenly it's again
>toddler-time in the newsgroup.
Well-said, Carol.
Tom
UsurperTom
>And for your information, that's already been done and has been reported here
on numerous occasions.
Who "determined" Marnie Hair's credibility?
>There's no more reason to take her word of
>events as actual than there is to take Yoko's.
It's hypocritical of Sobbin' Bob to claim that e motivations of human actions
cannot be judged because they are infinitely mysterious, and then accuse Yoko's
critics of "hatred" without foundation.
Tom
Nyarlathotep
> CaroJ11 <car...@aol.com> wrote:
> It's blatantly clear from
> your arbitrary decision to believe Marnie Hare's word over Yoko's that you
> just want to smear Yoko Ono's name and character.
Taking one person's word over another's doesn't imply a wish to
"smear" the other person, Bob. Further, Yoko hasn't addressed most of
Hair's assertions in the first place, so believing Hair doesn't entail
taking her word over Ono's.
> You want an "enlightening discussion," do you? Well, before you "just
> accept" Marnie Hare's word,<snip>
She didn't "just accept" Hair's word; she presented several good
reasons for supposing that Hair's claims were accurate.
> you must first determine her credibility.
> And for your information, that's already been done and has been reported
> here on numerous occasions.
No, people have merely pointed out (a la Sheff) that Hair had a
legal squabble with Ono. It doesn't follow that Hair's not credible.
(If credibility were contingent on absence of legal troubles, then
mark the consequences for Yoko "Star Person" Ono.)
> There's no more reason to take her word of
> events as actual than there is to take Yoko's.
Actually, there is, since Ono has a long history of dishonesty
(e.g., denying that she was involved with Havadtoy in the early 80s).
Hair doesn't
> Madam, _you're_ the troll.
And what happened to your pretense to never judging others, Mr.
Divided Self?
Nyarlathotep
> Had Marnie Hair told any of this to Ray Coleman, for example, then we'd have a
> far more credible author. But we don't. We got Goldman, and you can have him.
Unfortunately, it didn't occur to the befuddled Mr. Coleman to
speak with Hair -- or anyone else who might've presented a challenge
to Coleman's lullabye conception of John & Yoko. No, Coleman got most
of his information (re: J&Y's later years) from Elliot Mintz, a
loathesome sycophant/hanger-on in whom Coleman probably saw a kindred
spirit.
Donz5
Well, as long as you see this objectively. That's all that matters.
Donz5
>Arlene Reckson, a personal assistant of Yoko's, said that Yoko told her that
>John kicked her in the stomach during one of her pregnancies.
Well, that's proof enough for me.
DavisK
> On May 3rd of '81, the *Times of London* printed a lengthy interview
> with Yoko Ono in which she made a few surprising admissions. E.g.,
> refused to take him back on certain occasions (during his supposed
> "Lost Weekend") because he "wasn't ready yet"; in '81, Yoko admitted
> people -- several others."
>
> closet fag, you know.' Because, when we started to live together,
> John would say to me, 'Do you know why I like you? Because you look
> like a bloke in drag. You're like a mate.'"
Bullshit.
Nyarlathotep
Well put, Carol. I'm sorry to see you quit this topic (not that
I blame you, now that Stahley's infected it with his flatulent,
irrational ramblings). I hope the list you take the topic to is one
that I'm on.
Diana
>John and Yoko loved to tease one another, it was
>based in love and friendship and mutual respect.
>They were often so wrapped up in each other they
>forgot to consider what might be done with their banter.
YOKO: "You're a murderer."
JOHN: "No, YOU'RE a murderer."
YOKO: "Mmm, you're a murderer AND you're ga-a-ay."
JOHN [in a sultry voice]: "You sla-a-ay me, woman."
YOKO [staring deeply into John's eyes]: "Kiss me, killer boy."
[J&Y fall into a passionate embrace]
- - - - - -
http://www.hariscruffs.com
"As a scientist, Throckmorton knew that if he were ever
to break wind in the echo chamber, he would never hear
the end of it."
Diana
>> Yoko also admitted that, "I used to say to him, 'I think you're a
>> closet fag, you know.' Because, when we started to live together,
>> John would say to me, 'Do you know why I like you? Because you
>> look like a bloke in drag. You're like a mate.'"
>
>Bullshit.
How do you know? Were you there when Yoko didn't say this?
Diana
> Ono also talks about JL's youthful masturbatory habits.
Which is also discussed by Paul in Many Years From Now. If you need a
reminder: "Winston Churchill" :-)
Mister Charlie
"Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010804060713...@nso-fz.aol.com...
> nyarla...@hotmail.com (Nyarlathotep) writes:
>
> > Ono also talks about JL's youthful masturbatory habits.
>
> Which is also discussed by Paul in Many Years From Now. If you need a
> reminder: "Winston Churchill" :-)
And who the fuck cares about his youthful masturbatory habits? I mean
really, how low do you people have to go? So what if it's in a book? Do
you want to see your youthful habits discussed? What's the statute of
limitations for teen wanking?
You people fucking amaze me. There's no sludge you won't dredge up.
Diana
the others. It's a funny story! If Paul's willing to talk about it, why would
there be a problem with us mentioning it? We don't think any less of them
because they pleasured themselves.
nowhere man
> Mr C, that was kinda my point. Paul brought it up. Paul talked about John and
> the others. It's a funny story! If Paul's willing to talk about it, why would
> there be a problem with us mentioning it? We don't think any less of them
> because they pleasured themselves.
has this any place on a newsgroup frequented by kids?
Will
> >> Which is also discussed by Paul in Many Years From Now. If you need a
> >> reminder: "Winston Churchill" :-)
> >
> >And who the fuck cares about his youthful masturbatory habits? I mean
> >really, how low do you people have to go? So what if it's in a book? Do
> >you want to see your youthful habits discussed? What's the statute of
> >limitations for teen wanking?
> >
> >You people fucking amaze me. There's no sludge you won't dredge up.
--
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,
For the latest news, posters, books, screensavers, as well as
numerous other delights, visit BeatleART
FREE time limited screensaver demos coming soon
-------> http://www.beatleart.com/ <-------
齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,
Nyarlathotep
> "Diana" <amara...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010804060713...@nso-fz.aol.com...
> > nyarla...@hotmail.com (Nyarlathotep) writes:
> >
> > > Ono also talks about JL's youthful masturbatory habits.
> >
> > Which is also discussed by Paul in Many Years From Now. If you need a
> > reminder: "Winston Churchill" :-)
>
> And who the fuck cares about his youthful masturbatory habits? I mean
> really, how low do you people have to go?
So do you disapprove of Yoko's public discussion of the topic, Chuck?
Nyarlathotep
> nyarla...@hotmail.com (Nyarlathotep) writes:
>
> > Ono also talks about JL's youthful masturbatory habits.
>
> Which is also discussed by Paul in Many Years From Now. If you need a
> reminder: "Winston Churchill" :-)
In Yoko's version, it's "Frank Sinatra."
Nyarlathotep
> Francie wrote:
>
> >John and Yoko loved to tease one another, it was
> >based in love and friendship and mutual respect.
> >They were often so wrapped up in each other they
> >forgot to consider what might be done with their banter.
>
> YOKO: "You're a murderer."
>
> JOHN: "No, YOU'RE a murderer."
>
> YOKO: "Mmm, you're a murderer AND you're ga-a-ay."
>
> JOHN [in a sultry voice]: "You sla-a-ay me, woman."
>
> YOKO [staring deeply into John's eyes]: "Kiss me, killer boy."
>
> [J&Y fall into a passionate embrace]
This is really funny, Di!
Mister Charlie
> Mr C, that was kinda my point. Paul brought it up. Paul talked about
John and
> the others. It's a funny story! If Paul's willing to talk about it, why
would
> there be a problem with us mentioning it? We don't think any less of them
> because they pleasured themselves.
Maybe you don't (and I don't) but others would. It's just inflammatory
crap.
I had read it before so I don't doubt the veracity of the tale. Just the
appropriateness of it.
Nyarlathotep
> Thanks, Ny! Wasn't that the same interview where Yoko said that Paul hurt John
> more than any other person in John's life?
Indeed it is, Tom. It's also the article in which Yoko
strenuously insists that "I *never* pursued [John]," and that she
resisted his "clumsy" advances!
Tom
> closet fag, you know.' Because, when we started to live together,
> John would say to me, 'Do you know why I like you? Because you look
> like a bloke in drag. You're like a mate.'"
You do realize that was a joke, don't you?
Tom
>
> >John and Yoko loved to tease one another, it was
> >based in love and friendship and mutual respect.
> >They were often so wrapped up in each other they
> >forgot to consider what might be done with their banter.
>
> YOKO: "You're a murderer."
>
> JOHN: "No, YOU'RE a murderer."
>
> YOKO: "Mmm, you're a murderer AND you're ga-a-ay."
>
> JOHN [in a sultry voice]: "You sla-a-ay me, woman."
>
> YOKO [staring deeply into John's eyes]: "Kiss me, killer boy."
>
> [J&Y fall into a passionate embrace]
>
I think you're on to something here.
Tom
> nyarla...@hotmail.com (Nyarlathotep) writes:
>
> > Ono also talks about JL's youthful masturbatory habits.
>
> Which is also discussed by Paul in Many Years From Now. If you need a
> reminder: "Winston Churchill" :-)
>
Old story. It was in Lennon Remembers too.
Bob Stahley
: No thanks, Bob; I won't play. You've won the game, and, alas, another
: discussion is effectively ended with little said beyond the usual name-calling.
Codswallop. You BEGAN the "name-calling" right from the get-go with your
initial thesis, the one you came in here with. To wit:
: Why would a wife make such allegations against her own husband, even to
: a trusted friend?
You begain with a whole lot of assumptions even before your first
statement:
1) That Goldman's details were accurate.
2) That Goldaman's interpretation of the details was accurate.
3) That Hare's details were accurate.
4) That Hare's interpretation of the details was accurate.
5) That YOUR interpretation of both the details and the interpretations of
both Goldman's and Hare's was accurate.
You took _none_ of this into consideration before you waltzed in here and
made the blanket and completely unsubstantiated accusation that assuming
without question that Yoko made "allegations against her husband."
You BEGAN the "name-calling" with a transparent and banal attack on Yoko
Ono, Carol, so don't whine when you reap what you sow, okay?
: I was truly interested in valid and opposing points of view on the subject.
Again: Codswallop. If you were _truly_ interested in "valid and opposing"
points of view, you would have recognized that MY point of view (which is
that your initial thesis is flawed from from the get-go) IS, in fact,
"valid and opposing."
And more to the point, this viewpoint is, in fact, the _only_ "opposing"
viewpoint _possible_. You thesis amounted to nothing but a restating of
the classic chestnut "When did you stop beating your wife?" Only in this
case, it was "Why did Yoko beat her husband?"
Your question didn't allow for the most basic and most obvious "valid and
opposing" viewpoint: "She didn't!"
But instead of acknowledging this inherant flaw in your "logic", you took
your bat and ball and went home.
Well, excuse me if I happen to think your thesis is nothing
more or less than flame-bait, but whether or not you like it, it is, in
fact, both "valid" and "opposing." So, again, don't whine when you get
what you give.
: For whatever it's worth I have no "agenda." I wouldn't know how to plan such a
: silly thing, and wouldn't bother trying.I'm too old for such idiocy.
You may not be conscious of it, but it's transparent.
: True, I don't think much of Yoko Ono,
And there's the rub: Your hatred (which, in fact, is your agenda: to
express it, which you did all too well) is so all-encompassing, you can't
even see the basic flaw in your reasoning.
: but a lively rational debate could be educational
: and enjoyable for us all---- if we were ever allowed to have one.
To have a "rational" debate, one first needs a "rational" thesis.
Your's wasn't. It was flame-bait.
And you got _exactly_ what you were after.
So don't whine about getting what you wanted, okay? It's unbecoming.
--
__ __
_) _) fabo...@mindspring.com Why is a raven like a writing-desk?
__)__) Tosa, Witzend http://www.gildasclub.org/
Bob Stahley
: It's hypocritical of Sobbin' Bob to claim that e motivations of human actions
: cannot be judged because they are infinitely mysterious,
And it's typical of UTom to repeat a lie again and again and again as
if it was fact.
Bob Stahley
Yeah, right, sure. You repeated Brown's account just because you had
nothing better to do with your time. Uh-huh. Sure.
Ltb3105
she met John....highly unlikely, wouldn't you think, considering she was so
avante garde, you'd think she'd be "worldly" enough to know who the heck they
were!!
You'd have to be a hermit not to have heard of them invading America!
Was she just saying that so people wouldn't think she was after him for his
fame or money?
Laura B.
Art Harris
>
> Inflammatory, hearsay, and unprovable.
Objection sustained.
Mister Charlie
"Ltb3105" <ltb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010806150231...@mb-md.aol.com...
pop music. I don't find it all that hard to believe at all. However, the
part about her not trying to get John's attention for two years is a toughie
to swallow. An awful lot of people (Cynthia, etc.) have remarked on her
aggressive tries to get to see him.
Bob Stahley
: I find it amusing that Yoko didn't even KNOW about the Beatles as a group when
: she met John....highly unlikely, wouldn't you think, considering she was so
: avante garde, you'd think she'd be "worldly" enough to know who the heck they
: were!!
It was a different world then in the pre-celebrity-worship and
lowest-common-denominator-culture days. Try to imagine a world in which
the death of Elvis Presley didn't make the cover of _People_ magazine.
Seriously: Pop music, especially rock'n'roll, was simply beneath the
notice of the intellegencia.
: Was she just saying that so people wouldn't think she was after him for his
: fame or money?
No, she was just saying that because it was the truth. Most people with
college educations and above (which back then were far, far fewer than
today) just didn't follow with any kind of detail the antics of
lower-class entertainers, and this was especially those of those in the
"serious" arts.
Fact: Being raised on classical music, _I_ didn't know with any certainty
who the individual Beatles were ('cept for Ringo, whose face was
everwhere) until '66.
Nyarlathotep
> CaroJ11 <car...@aol.com> wrote:
> : No thanks, Bob; I won't play. You've won the game, and, alas, another
> : discussion is effectively ended with little said beyond the usual name-calling.
>
> Codswallop. You BEGAN the "name-calling" right from the get-go with your
> initial thesis, the one you came in here with. To wit:
>
> : Why would a wife make such allegations against her own husband, even to
> : a trusted friend?
>
> You begain with a whole lot of assumptions even before your first
> statement:
>
Bob, it's *Yoko herself* (not Goldman or Hair) who says that she
would call Lennon a "closet fag." The question of why in the hell Ono
would do that is perfectly legitimate. That the topic troubles you is
your own problem.
SmileYoko
On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:53:29 -0700 "Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
An awful lot of people (Cynthia, etc.) have remarked on her
> aggressive tries to get to see him.
>
ROTFLMAO! What did you *expect* the scorned wife to say?
--
Be true to your own act and congratulate yourself
if you have done something strange and extravagant
to break the monotony of a decorous age.
~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabe9131944
BEATLEFAN: Ne
nowhere man
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:53:29 -0700 "Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> An awful lot of people (Cynthia, etc.) have remarked on her
> > aggressive tries to get to see him.
> >
>
> ROTFLMAO! What did you *expect* the scorned wife to say?
"well, at least it wasn't that Francie toe rag!"
UsurperTom
>And it's typical of UTom to repeat a lie again and again and again as
>if it was fact.
What I wrote was true. Sobbin' Bob once said that he would never judge Hitler
and Stalin because he "never met them."
Tom
UsurperTom
>You repeated Brown's account just because you had
>nothing better to do with your time.
I pointing out the origins of the story, you dumbfuck!
Tom
Bob Stahley
: That the topic troubles you is your own problem.
That "the topic troubles" me is a blatant lie, Ny.
But nice try.
Bob Stahley
: What I wrote was true. Sobbin' Bob once said that he would never judge Hitler
: and Stalin because he "never met them."
You are blatantly misrepresenting my words.
You are filth, UTom. Utter and pure filth.
Bob Stahley
just because you had : >nothing better to do with your time. : I pointing
out the origins of the story, you dumbfuck! : Tom
To what purpose? To spread your filth?
UsurperTom
>You are blatantly misrepresenting my words.
The pot is calling the kettle black.
Tom
Mister Charlie
"SmileYoko" <G...@testCouple.org> wrote in message
news:861451....@news.best1.net...
>
>
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:53:29 -0700 "Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> An awful lot of people (Cynthia, etc.) have remarked on her
> > aggressive tries to get to see him.
> >
>
> ROTFLMAO! What did you *expect* the scorned wife to say?
She was far from the only one. I simply didn't elect to go and research
something of such little import. I'm sure more names will turn up here
(barring the Goldmans and Seamans and proven Yoko haters).
Nyarlathotep
>
> >
> >
> An awful lot of people (Cynthia, etc.) have remarked on her
> > aggressive tries to get to see him.
> >
>
> ROTFLMAO! What did you *expect* the scorned wife to say?
That Cynthia was Lennon's wife is no reason for discounting her
word. She's an honest person. Further, others, such as Les Anthony,
support Cynthia's version of events.
According to Anthony, Yoko "took one quick look at John and
attached herself to him like a limpet mine. With, I suppose, about
the same destructive result." On her first meeting with Lennon,
Anthony reports, Yoko "clung to [Lennon's] arm while he went around
the exhibition, talking away at him in her funny little high-pitched
voice until he fled. She came tripping out after him into St.
James's, and begged to come along to the studios where we were going
to record."
In summary of Yoko's relentless pursuit of Lennon, Anthony said,
"I'll say this for Yoko. She wasn't easy to put off."
In Lennon, Yoko saw her conduit to MONEY and FAME.
Nyarlathotep
Yet Sobbin' Bob has no qualms whatsoever about judging May Pang,
Fred Seaman, or their supporters. He's weirdly inconsistent, to put
it mildly.
Ltb3105
>part about her not trying to get John's attention for two years is a toughie
>to swallow. An awful lot of people (Cynthia, etc.) have remarked on her
>aggressive tries to get to see him.
I agree with you on that point......to save embarassment on my part, I won't go
into the stuff she supposedly mailed Lennon to get his attention. Most of you
who know the story won't have to be reminded though.
I'd say she was pretty aggressive....maybe she just said she wasn't, because so
many fans were attacking her anyway.
Laura B.
LuvU2
On 6 Aug 2001 18:07:14 -0700 nyarla...@hotmail.com (Nyarlathotep) wrote:
>
> SmileYoko <G...@testCouple.org> wrote in message news:<861451....@news.best1.net>...
> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2001 12:53:29 -0700 "Mister Charlie" <cc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > An awful lot of people (Cynthia, etc.) have remarked on her
> > > aggressive tries to get to see him.
> > >
> >
> > ROTFLMAO! What did you *expect* the scorned wife to say?
>
> That Cynthia was Lennon's wife is no reason for discounting her
> word.
don't discount her word, I simply look at her state of mind.
It's a universal truth: rejected first wives will talk.
> According to Anthony, Yoko
Les Anthony? Never heard of him. Does he claim to have been at the preview?
Ehtue
>You are filth, UTom. Utter and pure filth.
Bob, Bob, Bob! You seem to be making a judgement on a person when all you can
determine about him (her) is the words you see on your computer! Please tell
me it ain't so! ;-)
-Ehtue
Nyarlathotep
> > However, the
> >part about her not trying to get John's attention for two years is a toughie
> >to swallow. An awful lot of people (Cynthia, etc.) have remarked on her
> >aggressive tries to get to see him.
>
> I agree with you on that point......to save embarassment on my part, I won't go
> into the stuff she supposedly mailed Lennon to get his attention. Most of you
> who know the story won't have to be reminded though.
Right, Yoko's "gifts" were pretty damned strange.
It's not widely known that, only a few years prior to her
relentless pursuit of Lennon, Ono was being kept under heavy sedation
in a Japanese mental hospital.
Nyarlathotep
>
> Les Anthony? Never heard of him. Does he claim to have been at the preview?
Even Coleman acknowledges Les Anthony, a former Welsh Guardsman
who served Lennon for seven years as chauffer/bodyguard/jack of all
trades.
For Anthony's complete article on Yoko & John, check the Google
archives for Danny the Walrus' "News of the World May 25, 1972" post.
Bob Stahley
: Bob, Bob, Bob! You seem to be making a judgement on a person when all you can
: determine about him (her) is the words you see on your computer! Please tell
: me it ain't so!
It ain't. I've never met a person who's last name is "@aol.com." Have
you?
Bob Stahley
: usurp...@aol.com (UsurperTom) wrote:
: > What I wrote was true. Sobbin' Bob once said that he would never
: Yet Sobbin' Bob has no qualms whatsoever about judging May
: Pang, Fred Seaman, or their supporters.
Y'know, Ny, UTom purposely misrepresents to demonize and slander people,
but you're just stupid, so while I know right from the get-go that you
havn't the intellect to understand, I'll try to "dumb it down" so that
even _you_ might be able to understand it.
You may not know this, Ny, but Hitler and Stalin are dead. Yes, Ny,
they're dead. Really, they are! And even though you might want to,
you'll never, ever meet them. Why? Because they're dead, Ny. Really:
they're dead.
Now, I know you have a very short attention span, Ny, but try to remember
this for a few minutes: Hitler and Stalin are DEAD!
Got that? They're DEAD.
DEAD, Ny. Okay?
With me so far?
Good.
Now: Have you ever met Hitler or Stalin? No? Are you sure? Think about
it, now. I know it's hard for you to concentrate, but try, okay? Now, be
very sure. Did you ever, ever meet Hitler or Stalin in person? Did they
ever come by and visit you in your house? No? Are you sure? Absolutely
sure?
So you've never actually met Hitler and Stalin in person, right? And
that's your final answer, is it?
Sure, now?
Good! That's right, Ny! Yes, that's right! You've never met Hitler and
Stalin in person! Good Ny! Here a kibble treat for you! Yes, good Ny!
Okay, so you've never met Hitler and Stalin. And now here's the part you
were supposed to remember: Hitler and Stalin are dead, right? You
remember that? You remember that Hitler and Stalin are dead, right?
Right?
Aw, Ny, you were doing so well!
Okay, once more: Hitler and Stalin are DEAD! Now, do you still remember
that you've never met Hitler and Stalin in person?
Okay, well, that's something.
So, Ny, if Hitler and Stalin are DEAD, and you've never met Hitler and
Stalin in person, it just stands to reason that you'll NEVER meet Hitler
and Stalin in person, right?
Right?
Right?
Ny, come out from under the bed and stop holding your head like that, it
won't fall off, honest.
All I'm trying to tell you is that all you know about Hitler and Stalin
and all you'll EVER know about Hitler and Stalin is just and only what
OTHER PEOPLE tell you ABOUT them.
And so all your judgments about Hitler and Stalin is based on what OTHER
PEOPLE have told you about them. You _can't_ judge _them_. You can only
judge what OTHER PEOPLE say they are and what they did. Your judgements
can only be made on SECOND-HAND information.
Yes, you can read what they wrote and judge their ideas. Yes, you can
judge the actions ascribed to them. But you CANNOT judge them as people,
because you're NEVER MET them and, because they're DEAD, you NEVER WILL!
ALL you can judge is a representation of their personalities as told to
you in history books. And no matter how accurate that image may attempt
to be, a second-hand representation of that person can NEVER, EVER take
the place of FIRST-HAND experience.
And it should go without saying that neither Hitler nor Stalin has ever
posted articles to an internet newsgroup so you could judge their ideas
and actions first-hand.
I know very well, Ny, that such concepts are way beyond your
comprehension, but I simply cannot make them any clearer.
So I'll just quit trying.
So why don't you just go out and practice your character assassination
outside for a while. The fresh air and sunshine will do you good.
Oh,and re: "judging May Pang, Fred Seaman, and their supporters," yet once
more: I judge actions, not people.
--
____
UsurperTom
>And so all your judgments about Hitler and Stalin is based on what OTHER
>PEOPLE have told you about them. You _can't_ judge _them_. You can only
>judge what OTHER PEOPLE say they are and what they did. Your judgements
>can only be made on SECOND-HAND information.
This should confirm to everybody that Sobbin' Bob is a New Age crackpot. No
student would be able to pass a history course by operating under this mindset.
Tom
Bob Stahley
So what kind of "history courses" instruct students to create
fictionalized, sensationalized, "docudrama"-style psychological profiles
of historical figures? The University of The Weekly World News?
You can't tell the difference between a university curriculum and
an edition of "Entertainment Tonight," can you, UTom?
Tell the truth UTom: you've never actually attended a college level
history class in your life, have you?
--
__ __
nowhere man
Bob, you're leaving yourself widdddddddddde open here.
It would be far easier to acknowledge the wrongs of Hitler and Stalin and not
leave people any room to miscontrue the above line of thought.
Will
nowhere man
> UsurperTom <usurp...@aol.com> wrote:
> : Bob Stahley wrote:
> : >And so all your judgments about Hitler and Stalin is based on what OTHER
> : >PEOPLE have told you about them. You _can't_ judge _them_. You can only
> : >judge what OTHER PEOPLE say they are and what they did. Your judgements
> : >can only be made on SECOND-HAND information.
> : This should confirm to everybody that Sobbin' Bob is a New Age crackpot. No
> : student would be able to pass a history course by operating under this mindset.
>
> So what kind of "history courses" instruct students to create
> fictionalized, sensationalized, "docudrama"-style psychological profiles
> of historical figures? The University of The Weekly World News?
so you're saying Hitler and Stalin got a bad press?
Ltb3105
>relentless pursuit of Lennon, Ono was being kept under heavy sedation
>in a Japanese mental hospital.
>
that I doubt it.......John always fancied people that were "different" in a
"strange" sort of way!
Laura B.
Nyarlathotep
<snip of incoherent mush>
You're being weird, Bob.
Donz5
>> It's not widely known that, only a few years prior to her
>>relentless pursuit of Lennon, Ono was being kept under heavy sedation
>>in a Japanese mental hospital.
>
>That would explain basically everything. Where is your source on this?
To counter this claim:
Yoko was publicly active in the alternative music scene in NYC towards the end
of 1965. Specifically:
September 25, 1965: Carnegie Recital Reception (part of "Fluxorchestra")
October 4, 1965: Cafe Au Go Go (Worht Theater; Experimental Music and Dance and
Theater for next three Mondays)
October 31, 1965: The Bridge ("New Music")
Source: club ads posted in the Village Voice
UsurperTom
>You can't tell the difference between a university curriculum and
>an edition of "Entertainment Tonight," you've never actually attended a
college level
>history class in your life, have you?
I MAJORED in history in college! I also have a master's degree. Nonetheless,
my academic background is irrelevant to rmb.
Tom
Tom
and the relevance of that is?
Bob Stahley
: Bob Stahley wrote:
: > So what kind of "history courses" instruct students to create
: > fictionalized, sensationalized, "docudrama"-style psychological profiles
: > of historical figures? The University of The Weekly World News?
: so you're saying Hitler and Stalin got a bad press?
No, of course not, Will. I'm saying that university history courses teach
_events_. They don't offer "Personality Profiles" as if they were somehow
extentions of the tabloid press.
In a history course, Will, one learns _facts_, not "celebrity
revelations."
That's what I'm saying, Will. Clear?
Bob Stahley
: Bob Stahley <bo...@primenet.com> wrote in message news:<9kpb2k$s4o$1...@nnrp2.phx.gblx.net>...
: <snip of incoherent mush>
: You're being weird, Bob.
No, Ny, it's not "weird." It's fact. Hitler and Stalin are really dead!
Why does it not surprise me that you'd find that fact "incoherant mush."
--
__ __
nowhere man
> nowhere man <NOSPA...@foolshill.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> : Bob Stahley wrote:
> : > So what kind of "history courses" instruct students to create
> : > fictionalized, sensationalized, "docudrama"-style psychological profiles
> : > of historical figures? The University of The Weekly World News?
> : so you're saying Hitler and Stalin got a bad press?
>
> No, of course not, Will. I'm saying that university history courses teach
> _events_. They don't offer "Personality Profiles" as if they were somehow
> extentions of the tabloid press.
yeah yeah yeah....and folks don't make judgements based on the knowledge they
gleem from historic events?
bob, I thought you were a man of intelligence.
You're merely a fool.
Will
Ltb3105
>> in a Japanese mental hospital.
>
>
>and the relevance of that is?
>
that Yoko is a coo coo, obviously, but I didn't need to be told she actually
was committed to believe that. Her strange mannerisms and attempts to "catch"
John were weird in any book.
Laura B.
Ltb3105
>>>in a Japanese mental hospital.
>>
>>That would explain basically everything. Where is your source on this?
>
>To counter this claim:
>
>Yoko was publicly active in the alternative music scene in NYC towards the
>end
>of 1965. Specifically:
>
>September 25, 1965: Carnegie Recital Reception (part of "Fluxorchestra")
>October 4, 1965: Cafe Au Go Go (Worht Theater; Experimental Music and Dance
>and
>Theater for next three Mondays)
>October 31, 1965: The Bridge ("New Music")
>
>Source: club ads posted in the Village Voice
>
Laura B.
Donz5
>Before or after the hospital gig?
This "hospital gig" has yet to be sourced. My point was that a year before she
first met John, she was in no Japanese mental hospital but instead was
performing publicly in NYC.
Ltb3105
Would be an interesting thread to spool around with, eh?
She will be innocent until proven guilty.
Laura B.
Ehtue
>: Bob, Bob, Bob! You seem to be making a judgement on a person when all you
>can
>: determine about him (her) is the words you see on your computer! Please
>tell
>: me it ain't so!
>
>It ain't. I've never met a person who's last name is "@aol.com." Have
>you?
You are truely amazing, Bob. You deny even that.
You're like a child who gets caught taking candy out of a jar in a 5&10 (dated,
I know) who says, "I had it when I came in and I was adding it to the jar." How
can you expect people to take you seriously when you refuse to admit an error
or lack of consistency, no matter how small or insignificant, when it's
blatently obvious to everyone? Rhetorical question, that.
-Ehtue
Mister Charlie
"Ltb3105" <ltb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010807202645...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
It seems many if not most artists of any genre live outside the norm.
Ltb3105
>
tee hee!
Laura B.
Mister Charlie
> >This "hospital gig" has yet to be sourced.
>
> Would be an interesting thread to spool around with, eh?
>
> She will be innocent until proven guilty.
>
Mister Charlie
> >'coo coo'? 'poo poo'd'? Are we on an alliteration tear today? :)
> >
>
> tee hee!
>
'pee-pee' ??
:))
Ehtue
>Oh,and re: "judging May Pang, Fred Seaman, and their supporters," yet once
>more: I judge actions, not people.
And yet you find it within yourself to say here that certain people, whom
you've never met, are idiots, filth, etc. Oh, Bob.....
-Ehtue
Ehtue
>: so you're saying Hitler and Stalin got a bad press?
>
>No, of course not, Will. I'm saying that university history courses teach
>_events_. They don't offer "Personality Profiles" as if they were somehow
>extentions of the tabloid press.
Obviously you've never taken a history course. You may view it as wrong, but
history professors (at least those in America and even more so in Germany, to
my experience) often delve into psychohistory. That may not be "fact" according
to your view, but worldviews are often presented in history courses, at the
undergraduate level, and especially at the graduate level. What did you major
in, Bob? Math?
>In a history course, Will, one learns _facts_, not "celebrity
>revelations."
>
>That's what I'm saying, Will. Clear?
Ahhhh, and what "facts" did you learn about Hitler and Stalin, Bob? Is one
permitted to "judge" those "facts" in your world?
-Ehtue
nowhere man
I reckon Bob could spin for planet earth
Indeed he probably span for OJ 'I'm going to devote the rest of my life to finding
Nicole's killer'
Trouble is, when your spin has been caught out a few times, folks don't take you
seriously.
Will
fredseaman
> >> Yoko also admitted that, "I used to say to him, 'I think
> >>you're a closet fag, you know.' Because, when we started to
> >>live together, John would say to me, 'Do you know why I like
> >>you? Because you look like a bloke in drag. You're like a mate.'"
>
> I'm sure JL only meant he felt comfortable with her, because Yoko acted more
> like a friend than a "date," but this brings up something I've wondered about
> for some time. Why would Yoko tell this or other like stories about her husband
> to a reporter? At the very least such anecdotes could be considered
> unflattering.
>
> Of course Bob Wooler would scream "Queer!" when John went off with Brian, a
> known homosexual, but other than that, no other allegations were made until
> Goldman's book came out with all that nasty info allegedly coming from Marnie
> Hair, the employee who supposedly got HER info straight from Yoko. (Some of
> Goldman's far-fetched psychobabble came out of his head, but the worst
> allegations in his book come from Marnie, as allegedly told to her by Yoko Ono.
> And, as far as I know, Yoko's never publically denied any of them. She's only
> addressed the heroin issue. McCartney has denied the homosexual allegations,
> but he's not the one being discussed here.)
>
> First off, I'm going to assume Marnie was telling the truth about where she got
> her information. Marnie might or might not have had a grudge against Yoko, but
> she didn't have one against John, so I doubt Marnie would have made up these
> nasty tales to disparage JL. Furthermore, I doubt Marnie knew enough detailed
> information about the Beatles' private lives for her to make up what is said in
> Goldman's account. As far as we know, Marnie Hair was no rabid Beatle fan,
> which she'd have to have been to supply the explicit details given in the book.
> She claims Yoko told her these things, and I'm convinced she's telling the
> truth. Furthermore, Marnie's never publically denied what was printed.
>
> Now, my question is: why would Yoko tell all this to Marnie Hair? Why would a
> wife make such allegations against her own husband, even to a trusted friend?
> We're talking homosexuality and murder here. And I believe at the time John was
> still alive, which would mean Marnie could have gone to the police with her
> knowledge. Farfetched? Perhaps. But the psychological element still exists. Why
> would a wife say such things? Was Yoko intimating she was terribly frightened
> of JL? And, worse, later why would a widow publically disparage her late
> husband to the press? Cynthia Lennon has said, "he (JL) was all man." May Pang
> told Howard Stern JL was "the best lover I ever had," while her husband sat in
> the wings. And there's not one shred of credible evidence linking John to
> either Stu's death or a drunken Hamburg sailor's---whatever John may have
> thought in his questionable mental state. Why would Yoko tell such things as
> truth? Wouldn't it weaken her own position? Any amateur or professional
> psychologists out there?
---CarolJ
Yoko confided in Marnie because, deep down, she loathed JL & had a
need to disparage him. At times, she even badmouthed him to me & other
members of her inner circle. Y has always sought to build herself up
at JL's expense. It was sometimes shocking to realize how contemptuous
of JL she was. In the 81 interview we catch a glimpse of it (Y naively
assumed that some of her 'negative' remarks were off the record & she
was not too happy about the way the interview turned out). Mintz
subsequently coached her some more & made sure that it didn't happen
again, insisting that Y stick to the party line even with friendly
journos who could be trusted not to publish anything that could be
embarrassing.
Anyway, getting back to Marnie: She was Y's closest friend &
confidante in the late 70s-early 80s, almost like family (Marnie's
daughter, Caitlin, was Sean's first girlfriend) & Y frequently let her
guard down & told Marnie lots of intimate stuff. Y liked the idea of
having a girlfriend she could be honest & 'real' with. You'd be amazed
about some of the stuff that Marnie told me that Y told her....
Ltb3105
Laura B.
Donz5
>You'd be amazed
>about some of the stuff that Marnie told me that Y told her....
Well, that's proof enough for me, stuff that Marnie told you that Yoko told
her.
Good thing this newsgroup is all about the music...
UsurperTom
>calling Bob a crackpot is uncalled for.
Then tell your friend to stop accusing Yoko's critics of "hatred" and
misrepresenting what we write!
Tom
Ltb3105
>>
>Does that mean then that I can expect your next post to somewhere reference
>'pee-pee' ??
>
LMAO,
Laura B.