Re: Yoko Wasn't Interested in John's Money...

On Oct 11, 12:09 pm, fattuc...@xxxxxxxxx wrote
If you read Pete's book (or was it in an interview?) you would know
Pete saw John and Yoko in the US. He visited them. Remember? And he
talked about how John was dominated and nagged.

Yeah, I remember.

He visited them once in ten years and to you he's an expert on their
marriage.

Pretty convincing argument.

So you think all these people are wrong? You know better?
They were all back in the past.
What does that mean? John's cousin was his family.
So you mean they are incapable of rendering an observation?

Nice straw man argument - the tactic of choice to divert from the
subject at hand when you have no argument.

Yeah, sure (sigh) they're capable of rendering an observation.

They did, didn't they?

Just as I'm capable of rendering an observation on my Uncle Bill's
marriage. who lives on the other side of the world and who I haven't
seen for ten years.

They were in England and never saw Lennon for the last ten years of
his life, for the greater part of the Lennon/Ono marriage.
Sure, they were bitter 'cause Lennon left Old Blighty.
They can talk about what they saw, right? They can talk about their
personal experiences.

Yeah (*sigh*) they can talk about it.

No-one said they can't talk about it.

Plus, IIRC John's cousin would speak with him long distance on the
phone.

My, my! Those transatlantic long distance phone calls!

No better way to diagnose a marriage but through them!

But trust them as disinterested observers - from the other side of the
world?
Come on.
Absolutely. Their observations make sense, because the same type of
behavior was seen by several other people. They felt John was
"fading."

Yeah, he "faded" out of Britain and out of their lives.

They felt hurt and that's too bad.

But that doesn't qualify them to know what was going on with somebody
halfway round the world who they hadn't seen for ten years.

Sigh. OK. You win. Linda was blatantly lying. Pete lied. Julian lied.
Bill Harry lied.
Happy now?
I didn't say they lied. They spoke of how they felt.
But they spoke out of a hatred of Ono that existed from the time she
came on the scene.
I am not sure I would agree with that; but if that is true, perhaps
one should ask "why"? Assuming all these people "hated" Ono (and I
think hate is a very strong word) why would so many people feel the
same way?

Gee. maybe they thought she broke up the Beatles or somethin'.

To you Ono is an evil monster of Manson/Rasputin proportions, and
Lennon an empty shell, a repulsively weak cipher of a human being.
These caricatures you try to shove forth are just silly and immature.
The people we're talking about were/are human, with obvious failings
and flaws.
But what you guys put forth simply isn't acceptable to any mature,
seasoned individual.
And it isn't borne out by the facts.
IMO the points I am raising are very much borne out by the facts.-
Personally, I think the "evidence" is there; we just interpret it very
differently.

I interpret the evidence knowing that I can't know, nor can anyone,
the real story of two people in a marriage. I hear the negative stuff
and can see why some people say such things, and take it into
consideration. I know some of the negative stuuf is true. I know that
the individuals being discussed had massive shortcomings and
failings. It's evident there was a fair amount of negative and
positive stuff going on.

You interpret the evidence to buttress up your vision of two
ridiculously extreme caricatures (Ono=evil, Lennon=pathetically
weak). The two people you describe are so devoid of humanity as to be
unbelievable, much less capable of producing a child or a pretty good
album together.

You seem to need to believe in this cartoon-like vision to give vent
to your hatred for some psychological reason (maybe the misogyny you
earlier displayed).

.