question for Fred Seaman
Nowhere Man
>
> After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No one in
> their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
why not?
It isn't healthy no doubt, but many a person takes a 'big unexpected
punch in the guts' and never fully recovers from it.
> >Grieving, usually, is a private process, but Yoko is a
> > public person.
>
> Yoko is also a greedy person....who loves public attention.
oh well, the agenda finally shows through.
> > Maybe Yoko wants the attention, maybe she wants to honour her husband as
> she
> > sees fit, maybe she just places art above all else.
>
> And maybe she just wants the publicity and the resulting profits.
I don't appreciate her 'art' but the big money comes from John's
estate.....and she was the main benificiary.
> >What I do know is that, until I know otherwise, I will assume that her
> intentions
> > are pure.
>
> Based on your posting, there is apparently nothing Yoko could do....or
> nothing you could learn about her....that would change your assumptions
> about her "purity". If her little stunts over the past 19 years haven't
> convinced you, nothing will, dearie.
try to get over your hate.
> It's been said before many times, but it bears repeating....especially in
> light of your post. Yoko has been far happier in the 19 years since John's
> death than she was in the 10 years preceding it. And if that's true, what
> does it tell you about her true feelings concerning John's death?
how do you know of her happiness/lack of happiness?
plza31
JL's clothing? were they returned to yoko? Does she still have them
today? Thanks in advance!
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Sisyphus
>JL's clothing? were they returned to yoko? Does she still have them
>today? Thanks in advance!
i'm not fred, but as i recall, they were returned to Yoko. she used his shirt
and glasses as part of an art exhibit in LA a few years back, much to the
disgust of Lennon fans.
alley (not fred)
Francie
The exhibit was in Santa Monica, not L.A.
There were many rooms within the whole space.
Wall-size graphics, tiny framed original Grapefruit pages.
A table setting all in bronze with martini glasses that had high heels instead
of stems.
And, hanging from the rafters high above the viewer's head, the shirt John was
wearing, bronzed.
I won't go into a technical description of how a piece of cloth is cast in
bronze, because I'm sure no one here is interested.
You could see the bullet holes.
It was shocking but I wasn't surprised to see it. I had wanted to see it.
I consider myself quite a Lennon fan and I am sure John would have dug it.
But I'll say no more but that John's shirt was the only item of his clothing
that was part of a very large show with several themes.
francie
--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
"If art is to nourish the roots of our culture,
society must set the artist free to follow
his vision wherever it takes him."
- President John F. Kennedy,
Amherst College, October, 1963
je...@firemail.de
<You could see the bullet holes.
<It was shocking but I wasn't surprised to see it. I had wanted to see
<it.
Why?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Booker
>And, hanging from the rafters high above the viewer's head, the shirt John was
>wearing, bronzed.
>I won't go into a technical description of how a piece of cloth is cast in
>bronze, because I'm sure no one here is interested.
>You could see the bullet holes.
That Yoko is one sick bitch! Is that the only way she can attract
attention? By either living off her husband's legacy or by trying to
shock people? Avante Garde artist, eh? She wouldn't survive 10 mins in
the real world if she had to stand on her own two feet.
>It was shocking but I wasn't surprised to see it. I had wanted to see it.
>
>I consider myself quite a Lennon fan and I am sure John would have dug it.
You assume too much in this sensitive issue.
Shobus
>attention? By either living off her husband's legacy or by trying to
>shock people? Avante Garde artist, eh? She wouldn't survive 10 mins in
>the real world if she had to stand on her own two feet.
>
I find Yoko's display of John's clothing no more disrespectful than the film of
JFK's assasination. Perhaps it is unsettling to Lennon fans, but isn't that
the point? Maybe you or I would not do this, but perhaps Yoko does not want
everyone to forget what happened to JL and how he died. I try not to dictate
how Yoko grieves. Grieving, usually, is a private process, but Yoko is a
public person. If she can handle it, then so can we.
>>I consider myself quite a Lennon fan and I am sure John would have dug it.
>
>You assume too much in this sensitive issue.
As does everyone that assumes that Yoko does these things to exploit John's
death. She was his wife, which gives her a lot of leeway in these actions.
Who better knows how to deal with the memory of JL? Yoko or us?
Maybe Yoko wants the attention, maybe she wants to honour her husband as she
sees fit, maybe she just places art above all else. I really don't know. What
London33
the clothes cut away by docters?
I never heard about this art exhibition
redskys@night
was
>wearing, bronzed.
>
I'm a big John fan and to me ................
THAT"s Disgusting!..............
I would be sick if I saw it.
I wouldn't call it art but what it is
a tragedy.
I don't dig artifacts of a murder and have a hard time thinking John would
dig such things of a murder
also including his own.
Then again you met him and might have a better idea then me but I can't
imagine it myself.
Like Light
that gets caught between night and day
you're stuck between me and my
me and my big ideas.......
Francie
sorry sorry sorry
Don't worry Kyoko
Mommy's only looking for her hand in the snow...
Art just is...
I didn't mean to hurt you
I'm just a jealous guy
;-)
Shobus
>dig such things of a murder
>also including his own
This is the same Lennon that put a picture of his drug bust on the back of an
album. I think that as long as Yoko treats John death with some degree of
seriousness, then it is o.k.
zekelo
> I find Yoko's display of John's clothing no more disrespectful than the
film of
> JFK's assasination. Perhaps it is unsettling to Lennon fans, but isn't
that
> the point? Maybe you or I would not do this, but perhaps Yoko does not
want
> everyone to forget what happened to JL and how he died. I try not to
dictate
After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No one in
their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
>Grieving, usually, is a private process, but Yoko is a
> public person.
Yoko is also a greedy person....who loves public attention.
> As does everyone that assumes that Yoko does these things to exploit
John's
> death. She was his wife, which gives her a lot of leeway in these
actions.
> Who better knows how to deal with the memory of JL? Yoko or us?
I think we'd all agree that the fans who loved John would know how to better
deal with his memory. I should think Yoko has pretty much proved that.
Morbid exploitation of John's death is not something his true fans engage
in.
> Maybe Yoko wants the attention, maybe she wants to honour her husband as
she
> sees fit, maybe she just places art above all else.
And maybe she just wants the publicity and the resulting profits.
>What I do know is that, until I know otherwise, I will assume that her
intentions
> are pure.
Based on your posting, there is apparently nothing Yoko could do....or
nothing you could learn about her....that would change your assumptions
about her "purity". If her little stunts over the past 19 years haven't
convinced you, nothing will, dearie.
It's been said before many times, but it bears repeating....especially in
Tom
>Surely John's clothes would have been in shreds. shot 3 times and then
>the clothes cut away by docters?
>
>I never heard about this art exhibition
>
Yoko's been making bronze pieces for a number of years, along with pieces
splattered with "blood." (It's not real blood, hence the quotes.) The shirt
with a bullet hole does exist, but I've seen her say that it isn't Johns
shirt.
Tom
>After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No one in
>their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
>
What's the average time that it takes a person to get over watching their
husband be shot to death?
>I think we'd all agree that the fans who loved John would know how to
better
>deal with his memory.
You're right. We all knew John better than the people who actually knew him.
Nowhere Man
>
> "Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:5mwd4.3865$JI.8...@news3.mia...
> >
> >
> > >After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No one
> in
> > >their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
> > >
> > What's the average time that it takes a person to get over watching their
> > husband be shot to death?
>
> after 19 years, you would be a very strong candidate for the loony bin.
> Perhaps you already are.....a candidate, I mean.
Dearie, I think you need to experience life a bit more before you tell
others when and how long they are allowed to grieve.
If you ever experience love and sudden loss in this lifetime, then come
back and share your experiences.
> > >I think we'd all agree that the fans who loved John would know how to
> > better
> > >deal with his memory.
> >
> > You're right. We all knew John better than the people who actually knew
> him.
>
> Methinks you need to learn how to read....or perhaps how to comprehend. The
> question had nothing to do with who knew him best....or "knew" him at all.
Tom took from your words the very same thing that I did. You should
maybe try amending your words to put across what you actually mean.
Nowhere Man
> >
> > Let's not use pet names. I have a few for you that I've edited out.
> > And let's not put it that way. Answer the question. How long is
> appropriate?
> > Here's some more questions.Have you ever loved another person? Were they
> > suddenly and violently taken away from you? How long did it take until
> their
> > loss didn't matter to you any more?
>
> Your question is nonsensical because you apparently haven't the slightest
> idea what the word "grieve" means. According to Webster's dictionary, "to
> grieve" means "to cause to feel grief; afflict with deep, acute sorrow or
> distress; to mourn." "Grieving" is what you do right after someone close to
> you dies, and perhaps for a number of weeks or even months thereafter. A
> person may even become dysfunctional during that time. But as I said
> before...and will say again for those who can't understand....if a person is
> still feeling DEEP, ACUTE SORROW OR DISTRESS after 19 friggin' years is
> clearly and undeniably a candidate for the loony bin. Don't take my word
> for it....ask any psychologist.
>
> OF COURSE, a person's death will still "matter to me" after 19 years!!
> Sheesh!! I wish as much as anyone here that John was still alive and well.
> But for f**k's sake, I don't GRIEVE for the guy.
were you a close family member?
> Yoko has been far happier in the 19 years since John's
> death than she was in the 10 years preceding it.
strange statement, where is your evidence?
Nowhere Man
Will
Beatles MP3s wrote:
>
> > No. In my experience she places $$$ above all else...
>
> Well, I've read of an experience you had where that doesn't seem to be the
> case.
>
> After your roommate offered copies of the Journal you stole to a publisher, you
> were arrested. Yoko allowed the charges to be reduced so you only got five
> years of probation after you agreed to not discuss the contents of the journal.
> I'd have to imagine that if yoko really valued money over all else she would
> have worked to have you put away for as long as possible and sued you in civil
> court to the extent that you would be so far into debt that you couldn't have
> afforded the computer you posted this with twenty years later.
>
> Also, she has never published the journals. I'd bet she could have got some
> money out of those, don't you think?
>
> On the face of it, it seems you're desire to get rich off of John's name at
> least matches yoko's
>
> >What naive BS. Y's *intentions*, as evidenced by her actions since
> >J's death, are to exploit the Lennon name, image & legacy as much as
> >possible. That's why Julian is so angry at her.---FS
>
> What's Jullian's feelings about you never turning over the Journals over to him
> according to John's wishes - the reason you gave for stealing them when you
> were arrested?
>
> Why did you wait long enough to allow your roommate to make copies and shop
> them to publishers?
>
> Why didn't you fed-ex them to Jullian the first chance you got, if indeed that
> was the motivation behind your crime?
>
> Did the reason you didn't involve money?
>
> What percentage of your income since 1980 has come from your experiences as
> John's gopher?
>
> What do you do for a living now, twenty years later?
>
> Seems like your * intentions*, as evidenced by your actions since J's death,
> are to exploit the Lennon name, image & legacy as much as
> possible.
--
_________________________________________________________________
"It's better to fade away like an old soldier than
to burn out. I don't appreciate worship of dead Sid
Vicious or of dead James Dean or of dead John Wayne.
It's the same thing. I worship the people who survive"
John Lennon
_________________________________________________________________
My Beatle Image Gallery: http://www.btinternet.com/~w.mulholland/
_________________________________________________________________
freds...@my-deja.com
sho...@aol.com (Shobus) wrote:
> >That Yoko is one sick bitch! Is that the only way she can attract
> >attention? By either living off her husband's legacy or by trying to
> >shock people? Avante Garde artist, eh? She wouldn't survive 10 mins
in
> >the real world if she had to stand on her own two feet.
> >
>
the film of
> JFK's assasination. Perhaps it is unsettling to Lennon fans, but
isn't that
> the point? Maybe you or I would not do this, but perhaps Yoko does
not want
> everyone to forget what happened to JL and how he died. I try not to
dictate
is a
> public person. If she can handle it, then so can we.
>
> >>I consider myself quite a Lennon fan and I am sure John would have
dug it.
> >
>
John's
> death. She was his wife, which gives her a lot of leeway in these
actions.
> Who better knows how to deal with the memory of JL? Yoko or us?
>
as she
> sees fit, maybe she just places art above all else.
No. In my experience she places $$$ above all else...
I really don't
know. What
> I do know is that, until I know otherwise, I will assume that her
intentions
> are pure.
>
What naive BS. Y's *intentions*, as evidenced by her actions since
J's death, are to exploit the Lennon name, image & legacy as much as
possible. That's why Julian is so angry at her.---FS
freds...@my-deja.com
dible...@aol.com (Sisyphus) wrote:
> >Fred, on the night JL was assassinated what did the hospital do with
> >JL's clothing? were they returned to yoko? Does she still have them
> >today? Thanks in advance!
>
> i'm not fred, but as i recall, they were returned to Yoko. she used
his shirt
> and glasses as part of an art exhibit in LA a few years back, much to
the
> disgust of Lennon fans.
> > alley (not fred)
I believe J's clothes, along with his eyeglasses & other things he
had on his person the night he died, wound up in police custody but were
eventually returned to YO. In spring 81 she used J's blood-splattered
eyeglasses for a cover shot of her SEASON OF GLASS LP. A few years later
J's bloody, bullet-hole riddled shirt served as model for a bronze
*artwork*. If memory serves, it was originally part of a travelling
exhibit titled Blood Objects. I saw the shirt (or at least one of them
-- I think that over the years Y. had several bronze replicas made of
J's bloody shirt) when it was exhibited at the Whitney Museum a few
years ago. I wasn't shocked, just disgusted.
-FRED SEAMAN
Francie
> No. In my experience she places $$$ above all else...
>
> I really don't
> know. What
> > I do know is that, until I know otherwise, I will assume that her
> intentions
> > are pure.
> >
> What naive BS. Y's *intentions*, as evidenced by her actions since
> J's death, are to exploit the Lennon name, image & legacy as much as
> possible. That's why Julian is so angry at her.---FS
>
Fred, let's agree to disagree on this. Save endless energy, we will.
*Art matters most*. My take. Julian is the one doing the exploiting right
now.,
franny
Diana
Yoda? :-) I'd like to keep hearing both points of view.
>*Art matters most*. My take. Julian is the one doing the exploiting
>right now.,
I'm sure Yoko sees it that way. From Elliot Mintz's statements, it's pretty
clear that she does since he speaks for her. I don't consider telling the
truth exploitation. Julian was the one exploited.
- - - - -
Hari Scruffs: http://www.hariscruffs.com
Beatles' upcoming releases:
http://hometown.aol.com/amaranth56/myhomepage/index.html
zekelo
>
>
> >After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No one
in
> >their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
> >
> What's the average time that it takes a person to get over watching their
> husband be shot to death?
Let's put it this way, dearie. If you were still grieving for a dead person
after 19 years, you would be a very strong candidate for the loony bin.
Perhaps you already are.....a candidate, I mean.
> >I think we'd all agree that the fans who loved John would know how to
redskys@night
>> Like Light
>> that gets caught between night and day
>> you're stuck between me and my
>> me and my big ideas.......
>
>sorry sorry sorry
Don't be sorry , no need! (-;
don't worry be happy !
>
>Don't worry Kyoko
>Mommy's only looking for her hand in the snow...
I liked the guitar on that song off of Live peace in Toronto.
>
>Art just is...
Linkletter! (-'
>
>I didn't mean to hurt you
>I'm just a jealous guy
Well well well , oh Well
>
>;-)
>
>francie
This is proof that people can agree to disagree peacefully!
I mean it must be high or low'
redskys@early in the evening!
D 28IF
>After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No one in
>their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
I'm glad we have you here to let us all know the proper time allowed for
grieving.
D 28IF
>now.,
>
Is this in any way like you exploiting your relationship with Paul?
Shobus
>as she
>> sees fit, maybe she just places art above all else.
>
>
>
>
Does anyone claim that she makes a lot of money off of her art? Isn't she
involved in charitable causes? It does not sound like money is the sole factor
in her decisions. On her boxed set, she could have dug up an unreleased
composition that she and John recorded as a duo, slapped it on the Onobox, and
sold many more copies, but she did not.
> What naive BS. Y's *intentions*, as evidenced by her actions since
>J's death, are to exploit the Lennon name, image & legacy as much as
>possible. That's why Julian is so angry at her.---FS
>
I think if one contrasts the actions of Yoko after John's death with the
actions of those that had a minor part in his life (employees, those with a
passing knowledge of him,) we can see that Yoko is not the exploiter. At least
she does not speak ill of him. She has not written a tell-all book about him.
His fans want to buy merchandise with his name, likeness, etc. She allows them
to do this. We want to hear unreleased recordings - she allows this, too. We
want it, so she gives it to us. Damn her for profiting from it.
Is it any worse than what McCartney does - releasing a live album after
everything he does? I could say that is exploiting his fans that feel the need
to buy every album, single, etc. Those two-part singles are great. Buy the
first one, now you have to buy the second. Of course, I do not blame McCartney
or the record company. If the fans want it, they will buy it.
paramucho
The debate that take place in institutions like RMB might be considered reasonable
grounds for an extension to the normal period of 19 years :-)
Ian
paramucho
I think you have a severe case of Paul-On-The-Brain.
But, don't worry, help is near.
1. Boil three onions for three hours.
2. Swallow whole.
3. Repeat every day for two weeks.
That should fix it :-)
Ian
zekelo
> I'm glad we have you here to let us all know the proper time allowed for
> grieving.
Thanks. I was worried I might have to explain it still again....in even
simpler terms. But it sounds like you got it. Is there anything else I can
help you understand?
Tom
>> >After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No one
>in
>> >their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
>> >
>> What's the average time that it takes a person to get over watching their
>> husband be shot to death?
>
>Let's put it this way, dearie. If you were still grieving for a dead
person
>after 19 years, you would be a very strong candidate for the loony bin.
>Perhaps you already are.....a candidate, I mean.
>
Let's not use pet names. I have a few for you that I've edited out.
And let's not put it that way. Answer the question. How long is appropriate?
Here's some more questions.Have you ever loved another person? Were they
suddenly and violently taken away from you? How long did it take until their
loss didn't matter to you any more?
>Methinks you need to learn how to read....or perhaps how to comprehend.
The
>question had nothing to do with who knew him best....or "knew" him at all.
It had everything to do with who knew him best. You're talking about what
would be appropriate for his memory. Those who knew him (and the quotes are
unnecessary, it's well documented that Yoko Ono knew John Lennon) have a
better idea of what he would have approved, or even enjoyed, than strangers.
zekelo
>
> Let's not use pet names. I have a few for you that I've edited out.
> And let's not put it that way. Answer the question. How long is
appropriate?
> Here's some more questions.Have you ever loved another person? Were they
> suddenly and violently taken away from you? How long did it take until
their
> loss didn't matter to you any more?
Your question is nonsensical because you apparently haven't the slightest
idea what the word "grieve" means. According to Webster's dictionary, "to
grieve" means "to cause to feel grief; afflict with deep, acute sorrow or
distress; to mourn." "Grieving" is what you do right after someone close to
you dies, and perhaps for a number of weeks or even months thereafter. A
person may even become dysfunctional during that time. But as I said
before...and will say again for those who can't understand....if a person is
still feeling DEEP, ACUTE SORROW OR DISTRESS after 19 friggin' years is
clearly and undeniably a candidate for the loony bin. Don't take my word
for it....ask any psychologist.
OF COURSE, a person's death will still "matter to me" after 19 years!!
Sheesh!! I wish as much as anyone here that John was still alive and well.
But for f**k's sake, I don't GRIEVE for the guy. John would probably be the
first one to put down someone who "grieves" that long. And again, as has
been said before, Yoko has been far happier in the 19 years since John's
death than she was in the 10 years preceding it. And if that's true, what
does it tell you about her true feelings concerning John's death?
> It had everything to do with who knew him best. You're talking about what
> would be appropriate for his memory. Those who knew him (and the quotes
are
> unnecessary, it's well documented that Yoko Ono knew John Lennon) have a
> better idea of what he would have approved, or even enjoyed, than
strangers.
>
Let me see if I got this straight....you're saying that because Yoko knew
John the best, therefore she is the only person truly qualified to
memorialize him?? Huh?? That's nonsensical.
JSeraf7064
their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
>What's the average time that it takes a person to get over watching their
husband be shot to death?
I don't know about anyone else, but something like that would never leave me. I
likely would not still be 'grieving', but I know not a day would go by that I
didn't think of it.
>>I think we'd all agree that the fans who loved John would know how to better
deal with his memory.
I think (the person wo originally posted this) is an idiot. John was a man. A
human being, not an object to be possesed by fans who somehow 'love' him
although they never met him and have no idea who or what he was, or was like.
You 'love' a media-created, image designed to be marketed for profit that
doesn't exist. The memory of the man belongs to his family and friends.
>You're right. We all knew John better than the people who actually knew him.
Remember your words here, Tom, the next time we're at the opposite ends of a
discussion involving Fred Seaman.
-JS
Tom
>Your question is nonsensical because you apparently haven't the slightest
>idea what the word "grieve" means.
No, it's nonsencical because you have the intellectual capacity of a gnat.
> According to Webster's dictionary, "to
>grieve" means "to cause to feel grief; afflict with deep, acute sorrow or
>distress; to mourn." "Grieving" is what you do right after someone close
to
>you dies, and perhaps for a number of weeks or even months thereafter.
No, one mourns the death of a loved one all their life. You never get over
it. Now answer the questions. One more, do your friends and family know how
little they mean to you?
>OF COURSE, a person's death will still "matter to me" after 19 years!!
>Sheesh!! I wish as much as anyone here that John was still alive and well.
>But for f**k's sake, I don't GRIEVE for the guy. John would probably be
the
>first one to put down someone who "grieves" that long. And again, as has
>been said before, Yoko has been far happier in the 19 years since John's
>death than she was in the 10 years preceding it.
Really? I assume this means you've had at least a 30 year relationship with
her.
Tom
>>You're right. We all knew John better than the people who actually knew
him.
>
>Remember your words here, Tom, the next time we're at the opposite ends of
a
>discussion involving Fred Seaman.
I knew that would come back to me. When I'm discussing Fred, I try to
confine myself (though I don't succeed)to things that either are
demonstrably incorrect (or at least have evidence to the contrary) or
occured during a period when he wasn't present. The formation of the Spirit
Foundation would be an example of one, Yoko's feelings today would be an
example of the other. In some cases, this applies, in others it doesn't. A
choice between what Fred thinks is appropriate and what Yoko thinks is
appropriate is different from a choice between what Fred thinks is
appropriate and what I think is appropriate.
zekelo
"JSeraf7064" <jsera...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000108124535...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> John was a man.
For someone to come on this newsgroup and tell us that "John was a man" is
an eye-opening revelation I might never have known had I not logged on
today. Thank God for the internet.
> (He was) A human being, not an object to be possesed by fans who somehow
'love' him
> although they never met him and have no idea who or what he was, or was
like.
I suspect the millions of fans who DO love him will dismiss your foolish
statement as the ravings of someone completely out of touch with what John
Lennon and the Beatles were and what they represented. I'm afraid your
credibility on this newsgroup is now pretty much shot. You must never point
a loaded gun at your foot.
> You 'love' a media-created, image designed to be marketed for profit that
> doesn't exist. The memory of the man belongs to his family and friends.
You can have your "media-created" image. The rest of us will remember John
just as he was....warts and all....and will always miss him and remember
him. And to suggest that "the memory of the man belongs to his family and
friends" and that only they can memorialize him is something we would expect
to hear from....well....frankly, an idiot. But then perhaps other readers
already came to that conclusion before reading this last bit of nonsense.
Beatles MP3s
Well, I've read of an experience you had where that doesn't seem to be the
case.
After your roommate offered copies of the Journal you stole to a publisher, you
were arrested. Yoko allowed the charges to be reduced so you only got five
years of probation after you agreed to not discuss the contents of the journal.
I'd have to imagine that if yoko really valued money over all else she would
have worked to have you put away for as long as possible and sued you in civil
court to the extent that you would be so far into debt that you couldn't have
afforded the computer you posted this with twenty years later.
Also, she has never published the journals. I'd bet she could have got some
money out of those, don't you think?
On the face of it, it seems you're desire to get rich off of John's name at
least matches yoko's
>What naive BS. Y's *intentions*, as evidenced by her actions since
>J's death, are to exploit the Lennon name, image & legacy as much as
>possible. That's why Julian is so angry at her.---FS
What's Jullian's feelings about you never turning over the Journals over to him
according to John's wishes - the reason you gave for stealing them when you
were arrested?
Why did you wait long enough to allow your roommate to make copies and shop
them to publishers?
Why didn't you fed-ex them to Jullian the first chance you got, if indeed that
was the motivation behind your crime?
Did the reason you didn't involve money?
What percentage of your income since 1980 has come from your experiences as
John's gopher?
What do you do for a living now, twenty years later?
Seems like your * intentions*, as evidenced by your actions since J's death,
zekelo
again. Such childish name-calling suggests that your arguments are perhaps
a bit too weak to stand on their own merits. Hence, the need to bolster
yourself with personal attacks. Fair enough?
Beatles MP3s
to Jack Jones' book about the murder and Chapman.
Yoko kept John's ashes at the foot of her bed untill an attempt to steal his
journals. She was afraid that the type of person who stole his journals would
also steal John's remains. A pretty reasonable assumption, I think. They were
then moved to a location that only family and John's closest friends know,
according to Mintz. Also quoted in the same book.
Diana
>in their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
Depends on how you define "grieve." Even decades after a loved one's death,
you still cry sometimes. It never goes away completely, and you're never the
same.
In a sense, you do grieve the rest of your life, though it's a different stage
of grief than when it first happened. It's still grief.
Francie
Thank you, Diana.
I still have the wonderful post you made to PMS
about the way Japanese women have been trained
to behave in public, and in many instances, in private.
Here in today's post, without actually defending Yoko Ono,
you have acknowledged the fact that she will feel the loss of
her husband for the rest of her life. And she will do with the
pain what all artists do. Make art. Move forward as much as
one can each day.
It's still grief.
francie
Nowhere Man
>
> In article <5mwd4.3865$JI.8...@news3.mia>,
> "Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No
> one in
> > >their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
> > >
> their
> > husband be shot to death?
> It depends. In this case we're talking about a wife who wanted to
> divorce her husband,
merely speculation on the part of Fred Seaman.
> but reluctantly abandoned her divorce plans when
> her lawyers explained to her that she could not expect to keep all of
> her husband's $$$.
speculation on the part of Fred Seaman.
> Six months later the husband is conveniently murdered
> & the wife inherits all of his money.
insinuation on the part of Seaman that there was some conspiracy to
murder John.
> Perhaps not surprisingly, it
> didn't take her very long to *get over* her husband's death.
Fred's hate filled agenda becomes apparent.
> Btw, she
> didn't *watch* her husband getting shot. Having bolted out of the limo
> ahead of her husband, she was safely inside the building when the
> shooting started.---FS
Fred's hate filled agenda is so obvious.
Nowhere Man
> I'm afraid that your reasoning is somewhat flawed, as you wrongly
> assume that YO *loved* JL. She did not.
what evidence do you offer fred?
> She merely used him for his
> money & fame.
any evidence Fred....or is this purely your hate filled agenda towards
yoko?
> Y knew J well enough to know that he would not have approved of her
> relentless commercialization & exploitation of his name, image & legacy.
> Nor would he have approved of the fact that Y. took away the house he
> gave to his half-sisters & donated to the Nat'l Trust (or whatever).
> Nor would he have approved of her selling off his things at auction,
> etc. But, fortunately for her, he isn't around to object, now, is he?
yes Yoko was the widow and hence the main benificiary of John's will.
Fred, why do you have so much hate inside? Life is so short.
Nowhere Man
>
> Tom is, of course, now a self-appointed expert on the grieving
> process, one of the many subjects he is an expert in. Based on my
> personal observation of Y in the hours, days, weeks & months after J's
> death she was not in the least grif-stricken. Never expressed any grief
> in private. She did, however, publicly mourn JL's death -- & continues
> to do so. It's an intrinsic part of her *grieving widow* act (yes, it is
> an act...a role she has played with great aplomb for 20 years). I
> predict that Y will *mourn* J for the rest of her life.
Fred, was there much worth stealing in the Dakota after John's death?
zekelo
lot of blank white space on your computer screen. Have you nothing else to
contribute?
A Pretty Nice Girl
ever got the journals. These are the same journals that John asked be given
to his son, right?
Deb
Beatles MP3s <beatl...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20000108164018...@ng-fz1.news.cs.com...
> > No. In my experience she places $$$ above all else...
>
> Well, I've read of an experience you had where that doesn't seem to be the
> case.
>
> After your roommate offered copies of the Journal you stole to a
publisher, you
> were arrested. Yoko allowed the charges to be reduced so you only got five
> years of probation after you agreed to not discuss the contents of the
journal.
> I'd have to imagine that if yoko really valued money over all else she
would
> have worked to have you put away for as long as possible and sued you in
civil
> court to the extent that you would be so far into debt that you couldn't
have
> afforded the computer you posted this with twenty years later.
>
> Also, she has never published the journals. I'd bet she could have got
some
> money out of those, don't you think?
>
> On the face of it, it seems you're desire to get rich off of John's name
at
> least matches yoko's
>
> >What naive BS. Y's *intentions*, as evidenced by her actions since
> >J's death, are to exploit the Lennon name, image & legacy as much as
> >possible. That's why Julian is so angry at her.---FS
>
> What's Jullian's feelings about you never turning over the Journals over
to him
Tom
Now here's an example of irony. Someone who just called another poster an
"idiot" complaining about personal attacks.
Tom
> Tom is, of course, now a self-appointed expert on the grieving
>process, one of the many subjects he is an expert in.
The ability to feel actual emotions and familiarity with other human beings
will do that to you.
Funny, I used to think those things were common to everyone.
afr
sell lithographs . . .I wonder what the motive is for earning money this
way? a.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2000 freds...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <5mwd4.3865$JI.8...@news3.mia>,
> "Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No
> one in
> > >their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
> > >
> > What's the average time that it takes a person to get over watching
> their
> > husband be shot to death?
> >===========================
> It depends. In this case we're talking about a wife who wanted to
> divorce her husband, but reluctantly abandoned her divorce plans when
> her lawyers explained to her that she could not expect to keep all of
> her husband's $$$. Six months later the husband is conveniently murdered
> & the wife inherits all of his money. Perhaps not surprisingly, it
> didn't take her very long to *get over* her husband's death. Btw, she
> didn't *watch* her husband getting shot. Having bolted out of the limo
> ahead of her husband, she was safely inside the building when the
> shooting started.---FS
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
>
Nowhere Man
zekelo, why all the hate towards Yoko?
You are trying to tell people in here how long a normal person should
grieve for. You have been called on that by many posters.
You then go on to call them idiots and such like. Why do you lack the
maturity and common sense to sit back and be able to take on board the
thoughts of others who, in some cases, probably can offer more insight
than yourself?
Do you claim to know everything?
Nowhere Man
> READ the posts you don't like....and then THINK before you post. It's
> confusing to some, I know, but try it.....it works!!
>
> Jseraf7064 did NOT find the word "idiot" offensive....did he? I mean, he
> used the word himself....didn't he? Are you suggesting that he was
> offensive? Are you saying that he engaged in personal attacks? That's a
> serious question. If you don't respond to it with a straight answer, we can
> only assume it's because you're afraid to.
>
> And since I knew that Jseraf apparently didn't find the word offensive, I
> therefore concluded that HE wouldn't be offended if I used the same word.
> Fair enough?
>
> As I said, some of you folks need to think before you speak. It's not that
> hard. Trust me on that.
zekelo, why do you always display such arrogance?
freds...@my-deja.com
"zekelo" <zek...@gateway.net> wrote:
>
> > I find Yoko's display of John's clothing no more disrespectful than
the
> film of
> > JFK's assasination. Perhaps it is unsettling to Lennon fans, but
isn't
> that
> > the point? Maybe you or I would not do this, but perhaps Yoko does
not
> want
> > everyone to forget what happened to JL and how he died. I try not
to
> dictate
> > how Yoko grieves. If she can handle it, then so can we.
>
> After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No
one in
> their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
>
> > public person.
>
> Yoko is also a greedy person....who loves public attention.
>
> > As does everyone that assumes that Yoko does these things to exploit
> John's
> > death. She was his wife, which gives her a lot of leeway in these
> actions.
> > Who better knows how to deal with the memory of JL? Yoko or us?
>
> I think we'd all agree that the fans who loved John would know how to
better
that.
> Morbid exploitation of John's death is not something his true fans
engage
> in.
>
> > Maybe Yoko wants the attention, maybe she wants to honour her
husband as
> she
> > sees fit, maybe she just places art above all else.
>
>
> >What I do know is that, until I know otherwise, I will assume that
her
> intentions
> > are pure.
>
> Based on your posting, there is apparently nothing Yoko could do....or
> nothing you could learn about her....that would change your
assumptions
> about her "purity". If her little stunts over the past 19 years
haven't
> convinced you, nothing will, dearie.
>
> It's been said before many times, but it bears repeating....especially
in
> light of your post. Yoko has been far happier in the 19 years since
John's
> death than she was in the 10 years preceding it. And if that's true,
what
> does it tell you about her true feelings concerning John's death?
Well said, indeed.
IMO, the suggestion that Y is merely giving the fans what they want &
should be applauded for commercializing the Lennon name & image is a
bizarre & pathetic rationalization. Sure, some JL fans will buy any
official JL trinket (no doubr Shobus & other collectors of Lennon
merchandise will be happy to buy Y's latest JL product, the line of
stuffed animals -- or whatever -- based on J's DRAWINGS FOR SEAN, an
idea Y & her marketing people got from observing the booming Beanie baby
market...).
If Y. truly cared about preserving J's legacy for the fans & general
public she would have long ago established a Lennon Museum instead of
selling off so much of J's stuff at rock memorabilia auctions & letting
Havadtoy run the Bag One Arts Gallery on West 79th St., which is
accessible only to well-heeled collectors.
freds...@my-deja.com
one in
> >their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
> >
their
> husband be shot to death?
>===========================
It depends. In this case we're talking about a wife who wanted to
divorce her husband, but reluctantly abandoned her divorce plans when
her lawyers explained to her that she could not expect to keep all of
her husband's $$$. Six months later the husband is conveniently murdered
& the wife inherits all of his money. Perhaps not surprisingly, it
didn't take her very long to *get over* her husband's death. Btw, she
didn't *watch* her husband getting shot. Having bolted out of the limo
ahead of her husband, she was safely inside the building when the
shooting started.---FS
freds...@my-deja.com
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that.
No one
> >in
> >> >their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
> >> >
> >> What's the average time that it takes a person to get over watching
their
> >> husband be shot to death?
> >
> person
bin.
> >Perhaps you already are.....a candidate, I mean.
> >
> And let's not put it that way. Answer the question. How long is
appropriate?
Hope ya don't mind, but I took the liberty of answering the question
in your previous post./---FS
> Here's some more questions.Have you ever loved another person? Were
they
> suddenly and violently taken away from you?
I'm afraid that your reasoning is somewhat flawed, as you wrongly
assume that YO *loved* JL. She did not. She merely used him for his
money & fame. Sadly, though, he did love her (in a blind, masochistic
way that defies comprehension unless you've witnessed it up close).
Some might even argue that the kind of infantile, emotional dependence
that's at the core of the pathology of this relationship doesn't quite
qualify as *love*, but who's to say? Love, after all, comes in many
guises. Whenever I think about this most unusual (or perhaps not...)
love/hate relationship I'm always reminded of the old saying: *Be
careful what you ask for, because you might get it*---FS
How long did it take until
their
> loss didn't matter to you any more?
> >Methinks you need to learn how to read....or perhaps how to
comprehend.
> The
> >question had nothing to do with who knew him best....or "knew" him at
all.
>
> It had everything to do with who knew him best. You're talking about
what
> would be appropriate for his memory. Those who knew him (and the
quotes are
> unnecessary, it's well documented that Yoko Ono knew John Lennon)
Yes. And considering the fact that she knew him for 14 years & was
married to him for 11 it is truly astonishing how little she really
*knew* him.../-FS
have
a
> better idea of what he would have approved,
Y knew J well enough to know that he would not have approved of her
relentless commercialization & exploitation of his name, image & legacy.
Nor would he have approved of the fact that Y. took away the house he
gave to his half-sisters & donated to the Nat'l Trust (or whatever).
Nor would he have approved of her selling off his things at auction,
etc. But, fortunately for her, he isn't around to object, now, is he?
-FS
or even enjoyed, than
strangers.
>
>
freds...@my-deja.com
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
> >From: "zekelo" zek...@gateway.net
>
> >After 19 years, Yoko is no longer "grieving". Trust me on that. No
one in
> >their right mind would still be grieving after 19 years.
>
for
> grieving.
>
Tom is, of course, now a self-appointed expert on the grieving
personal observation of Y in the hours, days, weeks & months after J's
death she was not in the least grif-stricken. Never expressed any grief
in private. She did, however, publicly mourn JL's death -- & continues
to do so. It's an intrinsic part of her *grieving widow* act (yes, it is
an act...a role she has played with great aplomb for 20 years). I
Beatles MP3s
>public she would have long ago established a Lennon Museum instead of
>selling off so much
Is part of it that you're bitter that you didn't get to be the one to sell it
off for so much?
Didn't Bob Rosen, your old roommate,with whom you set up a wharehouse to hold
all the material you planned to steal from John, enter in his journals (which
he turned over to police in a plea bargin arangement) "Project Walrus"
people(Fred Seaman, Bob Rosen and two others) were hoping Yoko would die, Sean
would die,Julian would die, the former Beatles would die and the only people
who would be able to disseminate information about the John and Yoko experience
were the members of "Project Walrus." Rosen entered into his journal, in his
own handwriting, "Dead Lennons=$$." ??
Do you not feel a bit odd accusing someone - anyone - of failing to peserving
John's legacy when your own partner was wishing John Lennon's heirs dead?
I'd advise everyone here to look for the March 1984 edition of Playboy. There
are five copies for sale on ebay all for under 10$ now. You might learn quite
a bit about Fred and his friends.
Shobus
>process, one of the many subjects he is an expert in.
It is odd that you would criticize him for this. He is merely saying that he
does not know how long one grieves - you are teh one saying that you know Y
inside and out, that her grief is false, and that it is all a show for the
public.
Based on my
>personal observation of Y in the hours, days, weeks & months after J's
>death she was not in the least grif-stricken. Never expressed any grief
>in private.
Perhaps "in private" to Y is not around the help, which would include FS.
>
>
JSeraf7064
death -- & continues
>to do so. It's an intrinsic part of her *grieving widow* act (yes, it is an
act...a role she has played with great aplomb for 20 years). I predict that Y
will *mourn* J for the rest of her life.---FS
Fred,
Can you elaborate on this and PLEASE try to keep your personal hatred of Yoko
out of it? How is it that she expressed no grief in private? He WAS her
husband.
Are your feelings for Yoko getting in the way a bit here? I can't stand her
either, but I have a hard time grasping that even SHE could be that cold.
You are far too valuable to this community to let yourself be biased by hatred
for the woman...
What I mean is, I don't have a problem with you trashing her till kingdom come,
as long as you stay factual!
What's the real story?
-JS
Beatles MP3s
>ever got the journals.
No he didn't. When Fred was arrested the journals were returned to Yoko. She
said she planned to publish them, but changed her mind and had them sealed
instead because John wrote very openly and sometimes causticly about the
people in his life in the journals. She didn't think it would be fair to do
that to the people he wrote about, some of whom were not well known.
These are the same journals that John asked be given
>to his son, right?
According to Fred Seaman, the man who stole them.
Wether or not John really said that isn't something we'll ever find out for
sure, I don't guess.
I don't beleive that Seaman ever had any intention of giving the books to
anyone, save a publisher. But regardless of his intent, he never did it.
zekelo
zekelo
> said she planned to publish them, but changed her mind and had them sealed
> instead because John wrote very openly and sometimes causticly about the
> people in his life in the journals. She didn't think it would be fair to
do
> that to the people he wrote about, some of whom were not well known.
You got it half right, but let's not sugarcoat this issue, shall we? Yes,
John did indeed write very candidly and sometimes caustically about people
in his journals.....including YOKO. So let's not assume that she was driven
by some high-minded concern for her fellow man when she decided not to
publish them. It only sounds foolish and naive.
If we learned nothing else about Yoko in the past 20 years, it's her
obsession with her public image. It's a theme that runs through EVERY
insider book written about John in his later years. It began when she
insisted that John take the sole blame for their separation in
1973-1974.....so she could be portrayed as the wronged wife.....and it
continues to this very day, as Fred Seaman has pointed out.
Shobus
>by some high-minded concern for her fellow man when she decided not to
>publish them. It only sounds foolish and naive.
Perhaps it was out of concern for John's image - not wanting him to look like a
jerk by revealing the bad things he wrote about others.
>If we learned nothing else about Yoko in the past 20 years, it's her
>obsession with her public image.
Can anyone blame her? Everything she does is scrutinized. Every action is
second-guessed. If she greives, she is a fake. If she does not grieve, she is
a cold, callous bitch. If she releases John's journal, she is raping the
Lennon legacy. If she does not release the journal, she is hiding what is
written about her. If we have learned nothing else, is that Yoko, from some,
will never get a fair shake.
>It's a theme that runs through EVERY
>insider book written about John in his later years.
I am not too interested in Lennon bios, so I can not claim to be informed on
this issue. What other books are out there about Lennon in his later years? I
am not too interested in Fred's.
>insisted that John take the sole blame for their separation in
>1973-1974.....so she could be portrayed as the wronged wife.....and it
>continues to this very day, as Fred Seaman has pointed out.
If people want to accept what Fred says about the time of his employment, even
though I think he lies, that is one issue. When they accept what he says about
time periods when he had no contact, no inside info, then I think that is
something else entirely.
Shobus
>> divorce her husband, but reluctantly abandoned her divorce plans when
>> her lawyers explained to her that she could not expect to keep all of
>> her husband's $$$. Six months later the husband is conveniently murdered
Another case of FS hinting that Yoko had John killed. To all those that Fred
retracted his statement and that he was kidding, what happened? What about his
claim that Yoko drugged and seduced Julian?
Shobus
>sell lithographs . . .I wonder what the motive is for earning money this
>way? a.
Personally, I was pleased that Yoko decided to authorize the production and
sale of lithographs of John's work. I like his paintings, the sales were done
tastefully, and the works were sold are very fair prices. How is this
different than releasing his music? Should she give away the art?
Tom
"Mommy, he did it first." It doesn't matter if he finds it offensive or
not, either personal attacks are acceptable or they aren't.
>I mean, he
>used the word himself....didn't he?
and worse.
. Are you suggesting that he was
>offensive? Are you saying that he engaged in personal attacks?
Yes, and I've called him on it in the past. If I see him complaining about
personal attacks, I call him a hypocrite. What does this have to do with
you?
> That's a
>serious question. If you don't respond to it with a straight answer, we
can
>only assume it's because you're afraid to.
>
>And since I knew that Jseraf apparently didn't find the word offensive, I
>therefore concluded that HE wouldn't be offended if I used the same word.
>Fair enough?
>
No. We're not talking about offending people, we're talking about making
personal attacks in lieu of discussing issues. I don't appreciate the
condescending tone you take either. That's also far from intelligent debate
and is simply another way of avoiding giving a serious answer. Now, what is
a reasonable amount of time to grieve for the loss of a loved one?
Tom
>
>You got it half right, but let's not sugarcoat this issue, shall we? Yes,
>John did indeed write very candidly and sometimes caustically about people
>in his journals.....including YOKO.
Where did you see a copy of the journals? I'd be very interested in reading
them.
zekelo
>Your question is nonsensical because you apparently haven't the slightest
>idea what the word "grieve" means.
>No, it's nonsencical because you have the intellectual capacity of a gnat.
Now, Tom, please repeat your little homily about personal attacks and the
hypocrisy of those who condemn them....and then engage in them. We await
your response. If JSeraf didn't find the word "idiot" offensive, why should
you?
And once again....*sigh*.....you don't read before you speak. I explained
many posts ago....in simple terms....how long a grieving process should last
for a normal individual. But it appears you still don't know....or
understand.... the definition of the word "grieve". I guess I can't help
you.
zekelo
living under a rock for the past 15 years, you'd already know the journals
are not currently available for public consumption.
Tom
>
>>Your question is nonsensical because you apparently haven't the slightest
>>idea what the word "grieve" means.
>
>>No, it's nonsencical because you have the intellectual capacity of a gnat.
>
>Now, Tom, please repeat your little homily about personal attacks and the
>hypocrisy of those who condemn them....and then engage in them.
I posted this early yesterday, before I said anything about personal
attacks. I never condemned those who make them, only those who make them and
complain about others making them
We await
>your response. If JSeraf didn't find the word "idiot" offensive, why
should
>you?
>
I'm not Jseraf. And a personal attack is a personal attack whether the
recipiant finds it offensive or not.
>And once again....*sigh*.....you don't read before you speak. I explained
>many posts ago....in simple terms....how long a grieving process should
last
>for a normal individual.
Fine, not substantiate your claim. Why should it last only that long?
But it appears you still don't know....or
>understand.... the definition of the word "grieve". I guess I can't help
>you.
>
Since you appear to have no idea yourself, I guess not.
Don Rife
"zekelo" <zek...@gateway.net> wrote in message
news:85a89o$mkh$1...@news.laserlink.net...
>
>
> And once again....*sigh*.....you don't read before you speak. I explained
> many posts ago....in simple terms....how long a grieving process should
last
> understand.... the definition of the word "grieve". I guess I can't help
> you.
>
>
Many people grieve for years. My mother still grieves and thinks about my
younger sister who died in Aug. 1970. Maybe not on a daily basis but several
times a month. Especially during July and August each year. The grieving
isn't the same as it was the first months or year but I assure you it is
real. My whole family still grieves the loss. Time fades away. Memories
don't.
zekelo
to repeat your little homily about hypocrisy. We're still waiting.
Are you now too embarrassed to do so? Do you regret your own personal
attacks on others? Do you condemn hypocrisy no matter who is guilty of it?
Please respond.
Tom
>Sheesh!! I quoted your own words from a previous post, and then I asked
you
>to repeat your little homily about hypocrisy. We're still waiting.
>
Who's we? You and "the voices?" I have responded. You might want to think
about getting a better news server if you haven't seen it.
>Are you now too embarrassed to do so? Do you regret your own personal
>attacks on others?
Yes. If you want to bother with a Deja News search, you'll find me
apologizing (unsolicited) to Fred for any personal remarks.
> Do you condemn hypocrisy no matter who is guilty of it?
>Please respond.
I already answered this one.
rrcrumb
freds...@my-deja.com wrote in message <858ng2$d59$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Tom is, of course, now a self-appointed expert on the grieving
>personal observation of Y in the hours, days, weeks & months after J's
>in private. She did, however, publicly mourn JL's death -- & continues
>to do so. It's an intrinsic part of her *grieving widow* act (yes, it is
>an act...a role she has played with great aplomb for 20 years). I
>predict that Y will *mourn* J for the rest of her life.---FS
Well, that's show business.
rrcrumb
freds...@my-deja.com wrote in message <858mdl$cjd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> I'm afraid that your reasoning is somewhat flawed, as you wrongly
>assume that YO *loved* JL. She did not. She merely used him for his
>money & fame. Sadly, though, he did love her (in a blind, masochistic
>way that defies comprehension unless you've witnessed it up close).
> Some might even argue that the kind of infantile, emotional dependence
>that's at the core of the pathology of this relationship doesn't quite
>qualify as *love*, but who's to say?
John was the dependent one. As much as I detest Y,
John had something strange inside him that made him
into an emotional cripple and dependent. He enjoyed it
all at least most of the time.
A two way street in other words and Y was only too happy
to oblige.
TODAY you would call someone like John a
LOSER!
That is not what he originally was but that's what
he became when he succumbed to Yoko and her ways.
A Pretty Nice Girl
zekelo wrote:
Gee, zekelo, am I right in assuming that you are in fact a Dale Carnegie
graduate, i.e., How to Win Friends and Influence People.
PS - If so, I'd demand my money back if I were you.
Debbie
A Pretty Nice Girl
rrcrumb wrote:
> TODAY you would call someone like John a
>
> LOSER!
>
> That is not what he originally was but that's what
> he became when he succumbed to Yoko and her ways.
<snipped>
Troll alert.
A Pretty Nice Girl
Beatles MP3s wrote:
I wrote:
> >Very well-written post but I still am unclear as to whether or not Julian
> >ever got the journals.
>
> No he didn't. When Fred was arrested the journals were returned to Yoko.
She
> said she planned to publish them, but changed her mind and had them sealed
> instead because John wrote very openly and sometimes causticly about the
> people in his life in the journals. She didn't think it would be fair to
do
> that to the people he wrote about, some of whom were not well known.
>
> These are the same journals that John asked be given
> >to his son, right?
>
> According to Fred Seaman, the man who stole them.
>
> Wether or not John really said that isn't something we'll ever find out
for
> sure, I don't guess.
>
> I don't beleive that Seaman ever had any intention of giving the books to
> anyone, save a publisher. But regardless of his intent, he never did it.
Were there caustic things written about Julian and Cyn and maybe that's why
Yoko didn't want Julian to read the journals? Then again why would JL
request they be given to Julian if that were the case. It's getting murkier
daily.
Deb
A Pretty Nice Girl
Exactly.
Beatles MP3s
>John did indeed write very candidly and sometimes caustically about people
>by some high-minded concern for her fellow man when she decided not to
>publish them. It only sounds foolish and naive.
Ok, as long as you don't assume to know the contents of a book you haven't had
access to. It only sounds foolish and naive.
What we know about the journals comes from only a handfull of people who read
it. And I don't think we should consider the admitted felons who stole it as an
accurate source, so the field narrows even more.
Beatles MP3s
>> I've read many things you'd love to know about. But unless you've been
>> living under a rock for the past 15 years, you'd already know the journals
>> are not currently available for public consumption.
See, that's the problem. You're not in position to know what the books said.
All you know is what has been in the handfull of interviews that have been
published on the subject, like the rest of us.
And there's nothing in the interviews that justify the conculsions you've come
to.
zekelo
zekelo
It so happens that rrcrumb is right on target.
D 28IF
>personal observation of Y in the hours, days, weeks & months after J's
>death she was not in the least grif-stricken. Never expressed any grief
>in private. She did, however, publicly mourn JL's death -- & continues
>to do so. It's an intrinsic part of her *grieving widow* act (yes, it is
>an act...a role she has played with great aplomb for 20 years). I
>predict that Y will *mourn* J for the rest of her life.---FS
>
>
Fred, there are many things you've written and told us that I believe and many
I don't.
But to judge someone else's grieving process is something I can't buy. While I
don't discount your version (based on other things I've been told by
"insiders") I can't believe it 100%, either.
When you say Yoko "Never expressed any grief in private," I find it hard to
totally buy, since when she was in private, you weren't there. You weren't
with her every moment of every day. She could have done things alone that she
didn't wish to show to anyone else.
freds...@my-deja.com
beatl...@cs.com (Beatles MP3s) wrote:
> > No. In my experience she places $$$ above all else...
>
> Well, I've read of an experience you had where that doesn't seem to be
the
> case.
>
> After your roommate offered copies of the Journal you stole to a
publisher, you
> were arrested. Yoko allowed the charges to be reduced so you only got
five
> years of probation after you agreed to not discuss the contents of the
journal.
> I'd have to imagine that if yoko really valued money over all else she
would
> have worked to have you put away for as long as possible and sued you
in civil
> court to the extent that you would be so far into debt that you
couldn't have
> afforded the computer you posted this with twenty years later.
>
> Also, she has never published the journals. I'd bet she could have got
some
> money out of those, don't you think?
>
> On the face of it, it seems you're (sic)
desire to get rich off of John's
name at
> least matches yoko's
I wish...
> >What naive BS. Y's *intentions*, as evidenced by her actions since
> >J's death, are to exploit the Lennon name, image & legacy as much as
> >possible. That's why Julian is so angry at her.---FS
>
> What's Jullian's (sic)
feelings about you never turning over the Journals
over to him
> according to John's wishes - the reason you gave for stealing them
when you
> were arrested?
>
> Why did you wait long enough to allow your roommate to make copies and
shop
> them to publishers?
>
> Why didn't you fed-ex them to Jullian (sic)
the first chance you got, if
indeed that
> was the motivation behind your crime?
>
> Did the reason you didn't involve money?
>
> What percentage of your income since 1980 has come from your
experiences as
> John's gopher?
& What % of your income comes from yer job as YO's gopher...?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
freds...@my-deja.com
sho...@aol.com (Shobus) wrote:
> >So let's not assume that she was driven
> >by some high-minded concern for her fellow man when she decided not
to
> >publish them. It only sounds foolish and naive.
>
look like a
> jerk by revealing the bad things he wrote about others.
or her...
>
> >If we learned nothing else about Yoko in the past 20 years, it's her
> >obsession with her public image.
>
> Can anyone blame her? Everything she does is scrutinized. Every
action is
> second-guessed. If she greives,(sic)
she is a fake. If she does not
grieve, she is
> a cold, callous bitch. If she releases John's journal, she is raping
the
> Lennon legacy. If she does not release the journal, she is hiding
what is
> written about her. If we have learned nothing else, [it] is that
Yoko,
from some,
> will never get a fair shake.
>
Life is so unfair, isn't? Sigh...
<snip>
freds...@my-deja.com
"Tom" <Blac...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >You got it half right, but let's not sugarcoat this issue, shall we?
Yes,
> >John did indeed write very candidly and sometimes caustically about
people
> >in his journals.....including YOKO.
>
reading
> them.
>
freds...@my-deja.com
yOU NEED TO FIX YER SPELLCHECK, eLLIOT...
you've come
> to.
freds...@my-deja.com
"rrcrumb" <zen...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>
> freds...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<858ng2$d59$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > Tom is, of course, now a self-appointed expert on the grieving
> >personal observation of Y in the hours, days, weeks & months after
J's
> >death she was not in the least grif-stricken. Never expressed any
grief
> >in private. She did, however, publicly mourn JL's death -- &
continues
> >to do so. It's an intrinsic part of her *grieving widow* act (yes, it
is
> >an act...a role she has played with great aplomb for 20 years). I
> >predict that Y will *mourn* J for the rest of her life.---FS
>
>
freds...@my-deja.com
d2...@aol.com (D 28IF) wrote:
> >Based on my
> >personal observation of Y in the hours, days, weeks & months after
J's
> >death she was not in the least grif-stricken. Never expressed any
grief
> >in private. She did, however, publicly mourn JL's death -- &
continues
> >to do so. It's an intrinsic part of her *grieving widow* act (yes, it
is
> >an act...a role she has played with great aplomb for 20 years). I
> >predict that Y will *mourn* J for the rest of her life.---FS
> >
> >
>
and many
> I don't.
>
> But to judge someone else's grieving process is something I can't buy.
While I
> don't discount your version (based on other things I've been told by
> "insiders") I can't believe it 100%, either.
>
> When you say Yoko "Never expressed any grief in private," I find it
hard to
> totally buy, since when she was in private, you weren't there.
i SUPPOSE THAT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DEFINE *PRIVATE*/-fs
<snip>
Richard Joly
>>
>> When you say Yoko "Never expressed any grief in private," I find it
>hard to
>> totally buy, since when she was in private, you weren't there.
>
> i SUPPOSE THAT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DEFINE *PRIVATE*/-fs
Then how do you ?
If the story is true that you used your employer's bathtub while at
work, for some a breach of privacy, then it'd be interesting to read
what you consider private and what you consider public, what was
considered " off limits" in the Dakota appts per your job
description ?
Could you just go anywhere, the bedrooms, the closets, the storage
spaces, etc ?
Richard
Beatles MP3s
You need to fix your shift key.
And I'm not Elliot Mintz. I've never met any of the Beatles or anyone in the
Beatles circles.
Everything I know about you comes from books and magazines I've read.
Beatles MP3s
>desire to get rich off of John's
>name at
>> least matches yoko's
>
>
> I wish...
I'm sure you do. Of course you never could have gotten that rich - your role
wasn't that important, but you've seemed to make a career of it.
> & What % of your income comes from yer job as YO's gopher...?
0%. That was easy.
It seems strange that you ignored all the rest of the questions I asked though.
Beatles MP3s
>spaces, etc ?
No, but he did anyway. That's what got him fired. He was caught taking a bath,
during work hours, in Yoko's private bathroom - according to the interviews
I've read.
rrcrumb
Sorry to offend your oh so delicate sensibilities.
Lennon retreated from the world because he couldn't handle it.
He basically curled up in a fetal position.
He skipped putting out records for years.....until Double Fantasy
which stunk anyhow.
A Pretty Nice Girl wrote in message
<85apk7$ou6$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
rrcrumb
Beatles MP3s wrote in message
<20000109174215...@ng-fa1.news.cs.com>...
>>You got it half right, but let's not sugarcoat this issue, shall we? Yes,
>>John did indeed write very candidly and sometimes caustically about people
driven
>>by some high-minded concern for her fellow man when she decided not to
>>publish them. It only sounds foolish and naive.
>
had
>access to. It only sounds foolish and naive.
>
>What we know about the journals comes from only a handfull of people who
read
>it. And I don't think we should consider the admitted felons who stole it
as an
>accurate source
Why not?
The person you gutlessly allude to seems quite accurate.
rrcrumb
zekelo wrote in message <85a2mu$j9n$1...@news.laserlink.net>...
>>When Fred was arrested the journals were returned to Yoko. She
>> said she planned to publish them, but changed her mind and had them
sealed
>> instead because John wrote very openly and sometimes causticly about the
>> people in his life in the journals. She didn't think it would be fair to
>do
>> that to the people he wrote about, some of whom were not well known.
>
>John did indeed write very candidly and sometimes caustically about people
>in his journals.....including YOKO. So let's not assume that she was
driven
>by some high-minded concern for her fellow man when she decided not to
>publish them. It only sounds foolish and naive.
>
>obsession with her public image.
And the amusing p[art is that she has really never done
anything creative enough to warrant having a public
persona/image. Her public image, such as it is, is entirely
dependent on her being John's partner. John did things
that brought fame and recognition. Yoko never could because
the near universal reaction to her "art" is dismay and
noncomprehension....such as the shrieking record albums.
It's a theme that runs through EVERY
>insider book written about John in his later years. It began when she
>insisted that John take the sole blame for their separation in
>1973-1974.....so she could be portrayed as the wronged wife.....and it
>continues to this very day, as Fred Seaman has pointed out.
>
>
rrcrumb
zekelo wrote in message <85b50g$gs9$1...@news.laserlink.net>...
Nowhere Man
rr crumbie is a troll.
Will
Sir Zeus
>
>rr crumbie is a troll.
>
>Will
How is he a troll? I didn't notice anything "trollish" in his post. Is it
because he insulted your delicate sensibilities or because he said Double
Fantasy stunk?
Freedom of speech Will. Don't be so quick to call people trolls.
Sir Zeus
>
> LOSER!
>
>That is not what he originally was but that's what
>he became when he succumbed to Yoko and her ways.
I agree with this. Keep in mind, I'm a huge Lennon fan, but it was a loser
thing for him to be so dependent on Yoko. From '75-'80, he was not his own
man.
Nowhere Man
Okay Sir Zeus......guess you are taking opposite sides from Debs and me
on this one. For one thing, I don't believe freedom of speech ever
entered into this debate. Is this an American thing to bring up freedom
of speech when one is chastised? My cat would have a field day if this
is the case and would probably emigrate to the californian sun.
Let me quote a single post from this person (rr crumbs) from yesterday:
"Lennon retreated from the world because he couldn't handle it.
He basically curled up in a fetal position.
He skipped putting out records for years.....until Double Fantasy
which stunk anyhow."
I regard that as trolling. Maybe you don't. I do.
Then again you don't have any probs with Francie and her slamming of
Paul (e.g. fat face) and you have no prob with Fred (e.g. the murder
conspiracy insinuations).
I see you now believe from another part of this thread that John was 'a
loser'. I asked you the other day at what point when someone was
slamming Paul, Yoko or John, would you say 'enough is enough'? You said
you would never at any point would say 'enough is enough'. We have
obviously
different views regarding decency, love and respect.
Maybe it's better to leave it at that.
Will <a Beatle and John Lennon fan>