> > I think you're a very nice person Donna, and quite level-headed. EXCEPT...
> > a) When you get into your thing with O'Leary > > b) When you and Marcus get into your thing with poisoned rose
> At the very least, you should add "c) Whenever Olivia Harrison comes > up." And I'd certainly add the patronizing attitude she puts on > toward those poor, unfortunate souls who fail to understand > spiritual issues like she does.
If you think that my post to Donna was in any way an endorsement of your position in this, you're sadly mistaken.
With respect to Donna's feelings about Olivia Harrison, it seems from what I've seen that she has had some personal interactions with those involved with Olivia. To me, this is a different situation than the typical anti-Yoko view, and I don't have any information to contradict what she has said, and I don't know that much about Olivia to begin with. So I really don't have a strong feeling about it. I tend to browse through those posts and move on.
There has been an awful lot of *very strong* expression of religious and political views around here recently, which makes whatever views Donna has expressed in these areas seem pretty tame by comparison. I have my own views, which I try not to express (although I haven't always been successful), and I tend to respect the views of others. So generally I don't get involved, but I really don't care if anyone else does, as long as they're not abusive. And Donna hasn't been abusive.
Now, as to the constant bickering between you and marcus, I think I can safely speak for many in the group in saying that it is just downright stupid, silly, counterproductive and, in the end, annoying as all hell. This has been going on since I joined the newsgroup and probably long before; one of my first recollections of RMB is a "discussion" about whether people who grew up with the Beatles have a different perspective about them than those who came to them later. Naive, silly old me, I thought it was a legitimate subject for discussion, but quickly realized it was a pretext for a flame war. Since then, I have noticed that you are nearly always there with a retort whenever marcus posts something. I'm not implying he's completely blameless, and I do notice that sometimes he'll post something with the expressed purpose of tweaking you, but you respond over and over again with the same old rants. We get it, already! The constant repetition is just tiresome and boring.
What you two remind me of more than anything else is Oscar (marcus) and Felix (you) in the odd couple. But in this case, it's not a comedy. What possible satisfaction can you derive from it?
Finally, I have to saying that your declared position in the group as Self-Appointed Musical Expert is wearing thin. You don't seem to understand that people would respect your musical knowledge *more* if you didn't shove it down people's throats and smugly dismiss the musical tastes of others if they run counter to your own. For me personally, it's not a huge deal since I consider tastes in music to be subjective and I'm not going to argue with the choices of others, but I'm far from the only one who is subjected to this (and some others are much more frequently than I am).
> > I've had some indirect dealings with this widow and they weren't good. > > (Okay, one was.. sort of.) I also know of about 20 people who > > personally know, or who have dealt with, this widow and they have not > > spoken well of her. Actually, that's putting it very mildly. Put it > > this way... I've never known anyone to have anything nice to say about > > the woman. Mean, mean, mean. Add strange, shocking, and cruel. But > > she does look lovely on TV, doesn't she?
On Oct 17, 5:48?pm, TAR <tom.r...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> poisoned rose wrote:
> > This is one of those nakedly hypocritical TAR posts which can't > > produce anything but laughs. She's sworn to combat bullies, yet > > staunchly defends Marcus, Blackpooljimmy and Mister Charlie. Riiight.
> Wrrrong. I don't defend Marcus for being a bully because he's not a > bully. I don't defend Jim, and I only stood behind Charlie when he went > after the instigators... like you. There's a huge difference between > people who stand up for others and for themselves, and those who > initiate the problem.
Ms. TAR has no problem telling me off, privately.
Sometimes I listen, at times not. Friends are like that and we are friends. She doesn't like to see me go at it with various folks here and tells me so.
> > Since I've only been posting here since March or so, I can tell you how it > > comes across to me.
> > I think you're a very nice person Donna, and quite level-headed. EXCEPT...
> > a) When you get into your thing with O'Leary
> You think I'm not level headed when I call him out for what he has > done? If someone was digging into your personal history, and your > family's personal history, and posting about it under different handles, > while trying to make it seem as if more than one person is doing this... > how would you react? I kept silent for a very long time. And then he > stepped it up and I couldn't be silent any longer.
> > b) When you and Marcus get into your thing with poisoned rose
> Why do you address me? Why don't you look to PR for his cruelty?
> > Why? It's not that I blame you, or the others for that matter. These > > things obviously started long before I started reading the group, and I have > > no idea (nor do I have any desire to know) how it all started.
> No, "O'Leary" started about a year ago, and you were here. Only I kept > silent, so he got away with it for a long time.
> > So, as > > opposed to your example of your school episode, I have no idea who's "right" > > and who's "wrong".
> Look it up, and you'll see.
> > I may be foolish, but I tend to form certain attachments to some of the > > regulars here (not like real life, but I think these are friendships of a > > sort). And it genuinely pains me when I see two "friends" coming into > > conflict with each other.
> If you want to be "friends" with someone who is deceiving you, that's > your business.
> > This *can* be a very pleasant newsgroup, but this > > kind of stuff detracts from it. And to me, it doesn't matter if you think > > you're right or not. I suspect the others think they're right too. And > > again, without knowing how it all began, I personally have no way of > > assigning "blame (not that I'd want to).
> > Let me tell you a personal example. For years, my brother and one of my > > sisters never spoke to each other. And when I spoke with either of them > > about it, I would hear a nearly convincing story as to how and why that > > person was in the right but the other was wrong. So I would press them > > about just burying the whole thing and erasing the slate and starting all > > over again. It took years to get through (for a couple of years my brother > > never spoke to me either because he thought I was taking *her* side). But > > gradually, the ice is melting, though it's not back to normal yet. But he > > eventually attended her daughter's wedding last year, which was actually a > > major breakthrough.
> > What I am saying is that I think the only constructive thing that can be > > accomplished here is forgetting about the past and starting fresh. Each of > > you probably thinks that you can gain the sympathy of others and, in a > > sense, get them on your side. If that were actually possible, the only > > thing that would result in the end is all the posters being divided into two > > groups, and believe me, that would not be a productive outcome. So consider > > the consequences.
> > Donna, I'm sorry if this is sounding like a lecture; it's not meant to be. > > It's intended as friendly advice. And it's not intended to single you out > > for criticism. It could just as easily have been written as a response to > > any one of a number of people (who I hope will read it and take it to > > heart). So please (you *and* the others) take it in the spirit with which > > it is intended. Thanks!
> My dear, Rich. PR bullies people here. He misunderstands and acts as > if he knows their intentions. He's wrong. He's wrong when it comes to > others, and he's wrong when it comes to me. It's unfair and unjust. I > call him on it. Maybe if others did, too, he wouldn't get away with it > so often. As far as "O'Leary", you're welcome to investigate his many > handles to see what he's written.- Hide quoted text -
>>> I've had some indirect dealings with this widow and they weren't good. >>> (Okay, one was.. sort of.) I also know of about 20 people who >>> personally know, or who have dealt with, this widow and they have not >>> spoken well of her. Actually, that's putting it very mildly. Put it >>> this way... I've never known anyone to have anything nice to say about >>> the woman. Mean, mean, mean. Add strange, shocking, and cruel. But >>> she does look lovely on TV, doesn't she? >> Say it, if you're gonna say it.
> And get her lawyers after me, too? No thanks.
Attacking widows is not nice. I hope it never happens to you. It shouldn't happen to Olivia Harrison, either. I don't see where she's mean or strange or shocking or cruel. I guess you do. But she's a widow, for goodness sake. Let her grieve. Let her be at peace. Be the solution you seek.
> Attacking widows is not nice. I hope it never happens to you. It > shouldn't happen to Olivia Harrison, either. I don't see where she's > mean or strange or shocking or cruel. I guess you do. But she's a widow, > for goodness sake. Let her grieve. Let her be at peace. Be the solution > you seek.
Starting a new thread, are we? Hey, as you well know with your transparent baiting regarding this subject, "O'Leary", I'm not the baddie here, nor am I the attacker. I'm just a woman who provided a sympathetic ear and a needed shoulder for some, and a tissue to help wipe away the tears.
It's always obvious how much you want me to get into this subject, as much as you'd like to appear as if you're protesting. You really should work on trying to cover it up a little better.
> Where you think it's better to > ignore him when he harshly criticizes people for no reason, I think it's > better to speak up. By not saying anything, it seems almost like a > silent agreement. And I feel that these are people who are thinking, > "Hey, better him than me. I'm not getting involved in this and becoming > a victim, myself."
That could say that about a certain skirmish in the Middle East.
O'Leary III <st...@strat.not.egg.knot> wrote: > TAR wrote:
>>>> What are you talking about?
>>>> I've had some indirect dealings with this widow and they weren't good. >>>> (Okay, one was.. sort of.) I also know of about 20 people who >>>> personally know, or who have dealt with, this widow and they have not >>>> spoken well of her. Actually, that's putting it very mildly. Put it >>>> this way... I've never known anyone to have anything nice to say about >>>> the woman. Mean, mean, mean. Add strange, shocking, and cruel. But >>>> she does look lovely on TV, doesn't she? >>> Say it, if you're gonna say it.
>> And get her lawyers after me, too? No thanks.
> Attacking widows is not nice. I hope it never happens to you. It > shouldn't happen to Olivia Harrison, either. I don't see where she's > mean or strange or shocking or cruel. I guess you do. But she's a widow, > for goodness sake. Let her grieve. Let her be at peace. Be the solution > you seek.
I've heard this claim before, but no one who makes it even wants to say what she's done. She doesn't exactly make a lot of public appearances, so I doubt it's anything to do with that. Merely saying "she's mean" isn't saying very much at all.
> O'Leary III <st...@strat.not.egg.knot> wrote: >> Attacking widows is not nice. I hope it never happens to you. It >> shouldn't happen to Olivia Harrison, either. I don't see where she's >> mean or strange or shocking or cruel. I guess you do. But she's a widow, >> for goodness sake. Let her grieve. Let her be at peace. Be the solution >> you seek. > I've heard this claim before, but no one who makes it even wants to say > what > she's done. She doesn't exactly make a lot of public appearances, so I > doubt it's anything to do with that. Merely saying "she's mean" isn't > saying very much at all.
One thing she did was to keep George away from his family - or so I've heard...
I personally think she comes across as a classy lady.
> > O'Leary III <st...@strat.not.egg.knot> wrote: > >> Attacking widows is not nice. I hope it never happens to you. It > >> shouldn't happen to Olivia Harrison, either. I don't see where she's > >> mean or strange or shocking or cruel. I guess you do. But she's a widow, > >> for goodness sake. Let her grieve. Let her be at peace. Be the solution > >> you seek. > > I've heard this claim before, but no one who makes it even wants to say > > what > > she's done. She doesn't exactly make a lot of public appearances, so I > > doubt it's anything to do with that. Merely saying "she's mean" isn't > > saying very much at all.
> One thing she did was to keep George away from his family - or so I've > heard...
> I personally think she comes across as a classy lady.
I don't think keeping someone away from his family is very classy.
What I don't understand is why would George marry such a person? Why would he stay married her? He didn't seem to be the type of person who would tolerate such things.
>>>> Attacking widows is not nice. I hope it never happens to you. It >>>> shouldn't happen to Olivia Harrison, either. I don't see where she's >>>> mean or strange or shocking or cruel. I guess you do. But she's a widow, >>>> for goodness sake. Let her grieve. Let her be at peace. Be the solution >>>> you seek.
>>> I've heard this claim before, but no one who makes it even wants to say >>> what >>> she's done. She doesn't exactly make a lot of public appearances, so I >>> doubt it's anything to do with that. Merely saying "she's mean" isn't >>> saying very much at all.
>> One thing she did was to keep George away from his family - or so I've >> heard...
>> I personally think she comes across as a classy lady.
> I don't think keeping someone away from his family is very classy.
> What I don't understand is why would George marry such a person? Why > would he stay married her? He didn't seem to be the type of person > who would tolerate such things.
>> > O'Leary III <st...@strat.not.egg.knot> wrote: >> >> Attacking widows is not nice. I hope it never happens to you. It >> >> shouldn't happen to Olivia Harrison, either. I don't see where she's >> >> mean or strange or shocking or cruel. I guess you do. But she's a widow, >> >> for goodness sake. Let her grieve. Let her be at peace. Be the solution >> >> you seek. >> > I've heard this claim before, but no one who makes it even wants to say >> > what >> > she's done. She doesn't exactly make a lot of public appearances, so I >> > doubt it's anything to do with that. Merely saying "she's mean" isn't >> > saying very much at all.
>> One thing she did was to keep George away from his family - or so I've >> heard...
>> I personally think she comes across as a classy lady.
> I don't think keeping someone away from his family is very classy.
> What I don't understand is why would George marry such a person? Why > would he stay married her? He didn't seem to be the type of person > who would tolerate such things.
Can someone provide some evidence that she did this?
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 03:09:50 -0700, > I Love George's Big Brown Eyes <aeriewinds...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> I don't think keeping someone away from his family is very classy. >> What I don't understand is why would George marry such a person? Why >> would he stay married her? He didn't seem to be the type of person >> who would tolerate such things. > Can someone provide some evidence that she did this?
This article may shed some light on his relationship with his sister:
Hare Krishnas miss out on Beatle fortune By David Sapsted and Hugh Davies in London December 1 2002
Former Beatle George Harrison did not leave a penny to the Hare Krishnas or any other charity in his £99 million ($283 million) will. At the time of his death from cancer a year ago, it was reported that he had left about £20million to the faith he embraced in the 1960s.
However, his will, which was made public on Friday, reveals that he left all of his estate in Britain - valued at £98,916,464 net - to the benefit of his wife Olivia, 54, and then to his son Dhani, 25.
Harrison's 71-year-old sister Louise, with whom he fell out five years ago because she opened a bed and breakfast in Illinois called "Hard Day's Nite", also did not figure in the will, though the two were said to have reconciled shortly before his death in Los Angeles.
Harrison, 58, was known to have been a generous donor to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and even donated a 9ha site near London to the group.
He was cremated in a cardboard coffin in accordance with the faith but his ashes were not scattered in India's Ganges River, as reports at the time suggested they would be. Thousands of followers, Beatles fans and members of the media waited in vain on the banks of the river for two weeks after his death.
All the guitarist's money - less than half the amount that commentators predicted - was left in trust in the will he made four months before his death. By leaving the estate in trust, his family avoids paying inheritance tax of almost £40million.
On Friday, surviving Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr were among performers at a memorial concert for Harrison at the Royal Albert Hall.
"It's a reflection and a celebration - my dear friend George died on that day," said Starr. "And it's a positive groove. Olivia wanted to put it together and we all said, 'Yeah'."
Proceeds will go to the Material World Charitable Foundation, funded by Harrison since 1973, to support the arts, music, education and people with special needs.
In an NBC interview last week, Olivia, Harrison's wife of 23 years said her husband had accepted the fact he was dying of cancer. "He gave his life to God a long time ago. He wasn't trying to hang on to anything. He was fine with it," she said.
begin 666 hpn.dat L1TE&.#EA`0`!`/ ``````````"'Y! $`````+ `````!``$```("1 $`.P`` ` end
begin 666 1038386358611.html&s=1024x768&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=574&bh=624&ct=lan&hp=N& [AQE] K1TE&.#EA`@`"`( ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````"``(```("A%$`.P`` ` end
abby then wrote: > However, his will, which was made public on Friday, reveals that he left all > of his estate in Britain - valued at £98,916,464 net - to the benefit of his > wife Olivia, 54, and then to his son Dhani, 25.
> Harrison's 71-year-old sister Louise... also did not figure in the will
This sounds like what any family would do. I don't see the big deal. When you get married and have kids, that family is your responsibility.
> This article may shed some light on his relationship with his sister:
> Hare Krishnas miss out on Beatle fortune > By David Sapsted and Hugh Davies in London > December 1 2002
> Former Beatle George Harrison did not leave a penny to the Hare Krishnas or > any other charity in his £99 million ($283 million) will. > At the time of his death from cancer a year ago, it was reported that he had > left about £20million to the faith he embraced in the 1960s.
> However, his will, which was made public on Friday, reveals that he left all > of his estate in Britain - valued at £98,916,464 net - to the benefit of his > wife Olivia, 54, and then to his son Dhani, 25.
> Harrison's 71-year-old sister Louise, with whom he fell out five years ago > because she opened a bed and breakfast in Illinois called "Hard Day's Nite",
There was no fall out, and she did not open any bed and breakfast. This article is bogus.
> also did not figure in the will, though the two were said to have reconciled > shortly before his death in Los Angeles.
Oh, brother. There was no reconciliation because there was no problem between them. I invited Lou to stay at my house that week so that she could visit George. She immediately drove in, overnight from Canada. I knew someone at the hospital, and was able to get her in to see the proper people before the press caught wind of it. George's limo driver then picked her up and brought her to the house where he was staying so that they could say their final goodbyes. She had just enough time to see him before he left for Los Angeles that evening.
>> Harrison's 71-year-old sister Louise, with whom he fell out five years >> ago >> because she opened a bed and breakfast in Illinois called "Hard Day's >> Nite", > There was no fall out, and she did not open any bed and breakfast. This > article is bogus.
It was probably referring to the Hard Day's Night B & B in Lou's former home. She apparently donated a lot of memorabilia to it.
>>> I don't think keeping someone away from his family is very classy. >>> What I don't understand is why would George marry such a person? Why >>> would he stay married her? He didn't seem to be the type of person >>> who would tolerate such things.
>> Can someone provide some evidence that she did this?
> This article may shed some light on his relationship with his sister:
> Hare Krishnas miss out on Beatle fortune > By David Sapsted and Hugh Davies in London > December 1 2002
> Former Beatle George Harrison did not leave a penny to the Hare Krishnas or > any other charity in his £99 million ($283 million) will. > At the time of his death from cancer a year ago, it was reported that he had > left about £20million to the faith he embraced in the 1960s.
> However, his will, which was made public on Friday, reveals that he left all > of his estate in Britain - valued at £98,916,464 net - to the benefit of his > wife Olivia, 54, and then to his son Dhani, 25.
> Harrison's 71-year-old sister Louise, with whom he fell out five years ago > because she opened a bed and breakfast in Illinois called "Hard Day's Nite", > also did not figure in the will, though the two were said to have reconciled > shortly before his death in Los Angeles.
> Harrison, 58, was known to have been a generous donor to the International > Society for Krishna Consciousness and even donated a 9ha site near London to > the group.
> He was cremated in a cardboard coffin in accordance with the faith but his > ashes were not scattered in India's Ganges River, as reports at the time > suggested they would be. Thousands of followers, Beatles fans and members of > the media waited in vain on the banks of the river for two weeks after his > death.
> All the guitarist's money - less than half the amount that commentators > predicted - was left in trust in the will he made four months before his > death. By leaving the estate in trust, his family avoids paying inheritance > tax of almost £40million.
> On Friday, surviving Beatles Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr were among > performers at a memorial concert for Harrison at the Royal Albert Hall.
> "It's a reflection and a celebration - my dear friend George died on that > day," said Starr. "And it's a positive groove. Olivia wanted to put it > together and we all said, 'Yeah'."
> Proceeds will go to the Material World Charitable Foundation, funded by > Harrison since 1973, to support the arts, music, education and people with > special needs.
> In an NBC interview last week, Olivia, Harrison's wife of 23 years said her > husband had accepted the fact he was dying of cancer. "He gave his life to > God a long time ago. He wasn't trying to hang on to anything. He was fine > with it," she said.
|
