Discussion:
Looks like another geriatric hippie type got offended because I didn't bow down to his Beatle gods... [Re: WHO HIRED CHAPMAN TO KILL JOHN LENNON? THE FBI? RONNIE BABY?]
(too old to reply)
Stan de SD
2006-12-25 04:24:59 UTC
Permalink
I heard the same reference after Lennon's assassination. He was
remarking upon the assassination of leftist activist, Allard K.
Lowenstein, in March of 1980, eight months before Lennon, himself, was
murdered. Ironically, Lowenstein's assassin was a disenchanted former
protege (Dennis Sweeney) who "heard voices in his head" and is still
in
a mental hospital in New York. Is this just a remarkable coincidence
or were you trying to be cute in using those exact same words?
Apparently, Lennon perceived the murder of Lowenstein as part of an
ongoing conspiracy to get rid of the intellectual elite behind the
leftist political movement of the sixties.
"Intellectual elite"? ROTFLMAO! < (chatroom moron speak)
Sounds like the typical runaway ego and
arrogance of the dope-smoking 1960's crowd
Guess you are unfamiliar with the WWII generation, the one guys like
Tom Brokaw called "The Greatest Generation."
I'm familiar enough with them to know that it was one generation before the
1960's malcontents.
I didn't hear any of them
complaining that it was arrogant and egotistical to be discussed in
such terms or apologizing for disallowing the Baby Boomers any societal
control at all until the last of the WWII bunch had bought the farm.
Then we have Generation X, the most shallow, arrogant, and egotistical
bunch of nincompoops to come down the pike.
There are some Gen Xers that have their heads screwed on straight, in fact a
few more than the hippy-dippy boomers.
Anything that came before
they were born they refuse to understand the first thing about. What I
really enjoy are their silly reviews of great old movies and classic
LPs. They don't know shit. I take it your Revolver reference stems
from some recent exposure to that excellent LP because you sure weren't
there grooving with the people when it came out.
My parents used to play it along with Peter Paul & Mary, Bob Dylan, and some
other folkie stuff when I was a kid living in the SF Bay Area in 1967. It
was OK, but I personally preferred the Seeds, Syndicate of Sound, Blues
Magoos, Mayall/Butterfield, Love, and stuff that would have been considered
a bit more bluesy/electric.
Your stupid remarks prove it undeniably.
Sounds like you're the stupid one. Probably touched a hippie nerve there,
loser.
- they were all SO self-important
and "dangerous" that they just KNEW that the FBI, CIA, Nixon and the
Birchers MUST have been spending all their waking hours plotting to
assassinate them.
I think the self-important one is you. So far, you've made no sense at
all, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to sound off.
I know my opinions are quite a bit different from the lamestream, but I
don't have delusional paranoid fantasies, or more correctly the drug-induced
psychoses of the 60's dregs who thought they were the vanguards of some new
Age of Aquarius.
Sheesh. Lennon was merely another example of a guy who was
a decent enough entertainer
Ha ha, the leader of the most popular and influential musical group in
the last fifty years was in your estimation "a decent enough
entertainer."
Popular and influential, sure? MOST popular and influental? Hell no. Your
whitebread suburban middle-class background is showing. Both Elvis and James
Brown were (and ARE) are more influential.
I think his accomplishments go a little beyond "decent."
Any one of a number of his best songs go well beyond that.
Again, reasonable decent pop/rock songs, but all that later shit is only an
embarrassment.
extrapolating his own abilities into an area he
didn't know shit about. He wouldn't have been such a fucking
embarrassment
to the world
Speaking of extrapolating one's abilities into an area one doesn't know
shit about and embarrassing oneself in the process, that is precisely
what you are doing right here, only the whole world isn't paying
attention, that much is for certain. I suppose that in your fresh out
of the chute mentality anyone who spoke against the insanity of our
incompetent, years long campaign in Vietnam was an "embarrassment," eh?
Yeah, you gotta love the US military when it comes to getting the job
done. Is that what they did in 'Nam?
The US military wasn't the problem. It was (and IS) a bunch of meddling
know-it-alls (a la McNamara) who tried to fight wars based on a spreadsheet,
and who never realized how asymmetrical warfare works.
Is that what they've done in
Iraq? Meanwhile, GM keeps pumping out those sitting duck Humvees
because it makes them a ton of money,
You have a better design for a vehicle? Let's see it?
the number of soldiers that get killed in them be damned
How many have been killed in them? Do you actually have any statistics? Or
is this merely an opportunity for you to go in a hippie rant and relive the
days of your ignorant, misguided Vietnam-era youth?
just so long as corporate American is in the black.
Funny how it doesn't take long for a hippie to start blathering about
"corporate America". It's comes automatically to you, like smoking dope and
not bathing. :O|
Or maybe you had a problem with his, "We're more popular than
Jesus" remark. Did you burn your Beatles records after that one? (just
kidding, cuz you weren't even born yet).
I'm old enough to remember the Summer in Love in 1967 San Francisco, where
my father worked. I remember 7th Street in West Oakland in 1970, and the
Black Power types giving my dad shit when he was doing appraisal work in the
area. I probably remember as much as you did, given the fact I was sober
through the late 60's and early 70's.
When did you come along,
about 1980? Speaking of arrogance, what do you know about the first
thing prior to Ronald Reagan? Something you heard on the G Gordon
Liddy Show?
I remember when Reagan was governor of CA after Pat Brown (you were probably
stoned, damn, and missed it). :Oo
if he retired after "Revolver" and moved on to making organic
salad dressing on a farm in upstate New York, or something along those
lines. :O|
Yeah, he wouldn't have penned Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, A Day in
The Life, I Am the Walrus, Revolution, Imagine, God, Mother, Across the
Universe, Watching the Wheels, Woman, or several other first rate
tunes.
You mean "Music to Smoke Dope By", Right? LOL!!!

(Hey, by any chance are you Steven Lightfoot?)
Merlin Dorfman
2006-12-26 18:35:51 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Stan de SD
Sheesh. Lennon was merely another example of a guy who was
a decent enough entertainer
Ha ha, the leader of the most popular and influential musical group in
the last fifty years was in your estimation "a decent enough
entertainer."
Popular and influential, sure? MOST popular and influental? Hell no. Your
whitebread suburban middle-class background is showing. Both Elvis and James
Brown were (and ARE) are more influential.
Paul McCartney was at least 75% of the Beatles. Lennon was more
than just along for the ride, but not much more. Harrison and Ringo
...knew how to play an instrument.

...
Post by Stan de SD
Speaking of extrapolating one's abilities into an area one doesn't know
shit about and embarrassing oneself in the process, that is precisely
what you are doing right here, only the whole world isn't paying
attention, that much is for certain. I suppose that in your fresh out
of the chute mentality anyone who spoke against the insanity of our
incompetent, years long campaign in Vietnam was an "embarrassment," eh?
Yeah, you gotta love the US military when it comes to getting the job
done. Is that what they did in 'Nam?
The US military wasn't the problem. It was (and IS) a bunch of meddling
know-it-alls (a la McNamara) who tried to fight wars based on a spreadsheet,
and who never realized how asymmetrical warfare works.
The US military learned the lessons of Vietnam, and they weren't
that the civilian leadership is the (onla)y reason we lost. Apparently
you haven't learned the lessons.
Miguel O'Pastel
2007-03-21 01:28:25 UTC
Permalink
"Merlin Dorfman" <***@green.rahul.net> wrote in message news:emrq27$eht$***@blue.rahul.net...
| In ba.general Stan de SD <***@covad.net> wrote:
|
| > "traveler" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
| > news:***@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
|
| ...
|
| >> Sheesh. Lennon was merely another example of a guy who was
| >> > a decent enough entertainer
| >>
| >> Ha ha, the leader of the most popular and influential musical group in
| >> the last fifty years was in your estimation "a decent enough
| >> entertainer."
|
| > Popular and influential, sure? MOST popular and influental? Hell no.
Your
| > whitebread suburban middle-class background is showing. Both Elvis and
James
| > Brown were (and ARE) are more influential.
|
| Paul McCartney was at least 75% of the Beatles. Lennon was more
| than just along for the ride, but not much more. Harrison and Ringo
| ...knew how to play an instrument.
|
| ...
|
| >> Speaking of extrapolating one's abilities into an area one doesn't know
| >> shit about and embarrassing oneself in the process, that is precisely
| >> what you are doing right here, only the whole world isn't paying
| >> attention, that much is for certain. I suppose that in your fresh out
| >> of the chute mentality anyone who spoke against the insanity of our
| >> incompetent, years long campaign in Vietnam was an "embarrassment," eh?
| >> Yeah, you gotta love the US military when it comes to getting the job
| >> done. Is that what they did in 'Nam?
|
| > The US military wasn't the problem. It was (and IS) a bunch of meddling
| > know-it-alls (a la McNamara) who tried to fight wars based on a
spreadsheet,
| > and who never realized how asymmetrical warfare works.
|
| The US military learned the lessons of Vietnam, and they weren't
| that the civilian leadership is the (onla)y reason we lost. Apparently
| you haven't learned the lessons.
|
|
Buck Owens sold more records than any of them.
M

Loading...