Re: Who was more *** Whipped, John or Paul?

On Mar 4, 1:40 am, dahld...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:00 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



F Parella <f_pare...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 2, 2:28?pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
F Parella <f_pare...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Like the right-wing nutters that you emulate when discussing
Yoko-related matters, you change the meanings of words to suit both
the situation and your viewpoint. ?What on earth is "elitist" about
not giving much credibility to second- and third-hand accounts?

But Pang, Green, and Seaman provide firsthand accounts.  Yet where is
all your talk about each person's own truth when these authors come
up?  What becomes of your reverence for firsthand accounts?  Suddenly
you start talking about greed and exploitativeness - even though
you're not even familiar with the authors' writings!  All the soft,
mushy stuff you were preaching a few posts back abruptly falls by the
wayside.  I'm just curious as to what triggers this radical change in
stance.

Ummm, among other things, you just snipped it out:

"What I'm saying is that there's an element of the subjectivity of a
person's experience that colors all accounts of the events in question.
I never said that this element is exclusive of all others that would
tend to distort "the truth", whatever that may be."

That assessment applies to Yoko, to Seaman, to Green, and to Pang.  In
addition, each of these except Yoko is first-hand only from a limited
perspective.  None of them was privy to all the details of John & Yoko's
relationship.

I suspect that neither John or Yoko were privy to all details of their
relationship as well. Private behind-closed-doors together moments are
only a part of a relationship. What family, outsiders, friends,
servants and acquaintances observe when people are together AND apart,
and then testify (sometimes corroborated sometimes not) form a mosaic
of what we have to go on. To blindly discount everyone's or anyone's
testimony strikes me as conservative, cynical and prejudicial, whereas
having having an open mind and discerning info seems to be a liberal
trait, don'tcha think?

If I were doing a biography on you, I would not only just take your
word on things - I'd be checking out your coworkers, friends, foes,
family and more.

And it's not just "their relationship" that has caused blood to boil
and mouths to froth.

Fred Seaman did a lot of posting here, many years after his book was
published. I never sent him any money for his posts. I don't recall
him plugging his book here either. He only had a problem with Yoko,
not John. He could have just as easily dished some exclusive dirt on
John for the truthseekers, but no. The stories came until (I suspect)
Francie Schwartz blew the whistle on him to Yoko, then <poof>

Of course this is my reporting - as biased and distorted as Any Other
Imperfect Human With Bias, or maybe not. Factor my cred, I guess...

This is an excellent post. I'd add that when one looks at the
criteria some people use for dismissing non-Ono accounts of Lennon's
life, they do not hold up. Green, Seaman, and Pang have "limited
perspectives"? No more than any one else - and depending on the
period of Lennon's life we're discussing, the perspectives are a lot
broader than Ono's. These people don't know "every single detail"
about Lennon's life? Who does?!? Why would anyone be expected to?

I think it would be better and more honest for people to simply read
these books first - and *then* decide if you have complaints about
them. We're intelligent adults. There's no reason to fear books. We
can have criticisms of them, sure - once we're familiar with them.
.

Loading