|
Post by scousette on Feb 15, 2015 12:23:03 GMT -5
Actually, John, you were proved wildly inaccurate about that. You not only had your facts wrong but you also twisted them using your draconian views of mental health. Wrong again, I accurately summarized Howard Sounes on Heather Louise being a recluse with mental health problems as proven in my quote directly from Sounes, a source you conceded was accurate but accused me of misstating which I proved a false charge by you! I own and have read the Fields book(just as I read Sounes) and your assertion that Fields denied Linda was a groupie is not even borne out by your quotes and I have kept the quote from Goldstein who in fact says there were different levels of groupies and Linda was a classy groupie. Fields endorses that line of thinking as shown in your quotes. Linda herself doesn't really deny it but she would prefer not to be thought of like that. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Linda pursued Rock Stars for sex and hoping to bag one which she did. That is a groupie under any common sense, common usage of the phrase. I did describe Lillian Roxon as a pre-Paul friend unlike Danny who, as I noted, even spoke at her NYC memorial, because I know there was a huge falling out between the two women when Linda blew Lillian off once she bagged her Beatle. Lillian is important to any telling of the making of Linda McCartney story because Mrs. McCartney blew her friend off completely once she met Paul. Lillian was hurt but as a rejected friend who helped open doors to Linda into the Rock world. I said Lillian called Linda a groupie which you admit! You try to smear Lillian and discredit her but again I was completely accurate to quote Lillian saying that. And Lillian knew the Rock Scene and she knew Linda very well, unlike you and I, so her calling Linda a groupie is more informed than me saying Linda was a groupie but it is also more informed than you denying that Linda was a groupie. And Danny Fields basically says, in those passages that you have quoted, that there are various degrees of groupies and Linda was the classy kind. I stand by my Danny Fields reference as evidenced by his reliance and agreement with Richard Goldstein's quotation. By the way, I wasn't wrong was I on Danny Fields' quoting Jim Morrison who thought Linda a "smart chick" because she, without missing a beat, shooed little confused Heather Louise out of the room as Linda was getting boned by The Lizard King! Lillian Roxon was mad that Linda dumped her and their friendship when Linda married Paul. bluecake, you're leaving that part out. Lillian did a lot to help Linda's career. Linda treated her badly. No wonder she wrote a scathing article about her.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 15, 2015 12:31:14 GMT -5
In fact, Jane was coming back from an acting tour when she caught Francie Schwartz in the house, which was the final straw. I interviewed Francie years ago. Here's what she said about that.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 15, 2015 12:36:49 GMT -5
How is Jane having an affair evidence of Mad Hatter obsession? I'm a McCartney fanatic and I would prefer to think Jane was faithful. debjorgo, I'm not taking aim at you. Macca Mad Hatters who dredge up vague stuff about Jane Asher to make Paul's tomcatting behind her back seem OK. I guess the question is, are there meetings or something I'm missing? Apparently all avid McCartney fans feel and act a certain way. I seem to be operating outside the platform.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 15, 2015 12:39:04 GMT -5
debjorgo, I'm not taking aim at you. Macca Mad Hatters who dredge up vague stuff about Jane Asher to make Paul's tomcatting behind her back seem OK. I guess the question is, are there meetings or something I'm missing? Apparently all avid McCartney fans feel and act a certain way. I seem to be operating outside the platform. I like nonconformists.
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Feb 15, 2015 14:10:59 GMT -5
Actually, I wrote about it. But in Danny Fields' opinion, it was both her unrequited crush on Linda as well as her anger that Linda didn't want to give Lillian the dish on Paul that caused Lillian to attack Linda. Either way, it doesn't speak well for the accuracy of Lillian's statements. Danny Fields knew both women and thought that Lillian called Linda a groupie because she knew Linda wasn't, she just had a personal grudge (whatever you think the root of the grudge was, it sounds like it was a combination.
scousette, why is it okay for you to "dredge up" anything else about anyone else involved in the Beatles' story, but not Jane Asher? And a famous man stated that he had an affair with Jane in his widely available memoir is hardly dredging anything up.
I respect Jane just fine, especially the classy way she conducted herself in not trading on Paul's name. Part of my respect is that she's a normal human being. Why shouldn't Jane have had an additional boyfriend on the side? She was young, pretty, it was the Swinging Sixties and her boyfriend was away a lot, and hardly faithful himself. But I'm afraid that many male Beatles fans suffer from a madonna/whore complex and have to divide the women in the Beatles story in those categories. It's important to them that Jane be seen as innocent, virginal English rose who was betrayed by a Big Bad Beatle. If they acknowledge that Jane and Paul were often apart and may have BOTH cheated on each other, then they become just a normal couple of twentysomethings who eventually broke up, and not St. Jane usurped by Whore Linda.
Nancy and Linda were/are the opposite of doormats. Unlike Heather, they worked and made their own money. Heather lives off money she received from Paul and has chosen to devote her life to promoting herself, playing sports and filming D-list reality shows.
You do not find Linda and Nancy attractive whereas you avowedly lust after Jane and Heather Mills. That's the only difference I can see.
John Lennon.
You made awful comments about Heather McCartney and her mental health. You've continually insulted James McCartney. In those cases, you don't believe that either the kids themselves nor Linda, as the mother of Paul's four children, deserves respect. Nor do you like Stella McCartney, Paul's daughter and the mother of four of his grandchildren. Yet Heather demands respect from you just for being the mother of Paul's daughter? Doubt it.
If it's true that you dislike frauds and fakes, then you should dislike Heather Mills, whose record of fraud and fakery (including formal criminal charges!) is well known. Beatrice will some day be aware of her mother's history and behavior and will have to deal with it, but that's completely related to what we post on a forum.
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Feb 15, 2015 14:20:47 GMT -5
Steve, I had read your interview with Francie. I believe her that Jane didn't walk in on them in the bedroom, but her timeline is still off. Paul and Francie were dating by early June 1968. Paul and Jane were definitely still dating at that time as they attended a Scafffold concert together on May 31 and attended Mike McCartney's wedding together on June 8.
Jane's announcement of the called off engagement occurred on the show "Dee Time" on July 20, 1968. In that interview, she also noted that she was not the one who ended the engagement (which implies Paul did via his cheating).
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 15, 2015 14:42:33 GMT -5
Actually, I wrote about it. I went back and read your previous posts and didn't see where you addressed Linda's dumping of Lillian. What did I dredge up? Using sweeping generalizations like "anything else" and "everyone else" is dangerous. Besides, I don't post that much here. I don't care if Jane had a fling with Roger Corman. I thought your Bible meetings remark was quite funny, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 15, 2015 14:43:29 GMT -5
My admiration of John Lennon has nothing to do with his sexual activities throughout his life and certainly not any verbal or physical abuse he may have perpetrated on any lover of his. That is a chapter of his life John Lennon himself was ashamed of and tried even up to his death to make up for.
For instance, lost in John's murder was the very honest dialog between a husband and wife in an imperfect marriage as chronicled in the music of Double Fantasy. As an older teen, I didn't mind at all Yoko's songs on that album but I focused more on John's thus missing the bigger picture of the album as an audio "heartplay." I have realized since that I was missing, "the other half of the sky."
But I have never written, "Atta boy John for shagging Robert Freeman's wife, Maureen Cleave, Eleanor Bron, May Pang" or whoever. Nor do I like that John hurt and humiliated Yoko emotionally on Election night 1972. John beat himself up for that one the rest of his life.
As to Linda, I admired Linda greatly showing Paul that there was more to life than red carpets and appearances at awards shows. We all read that Paul's London home went largely unused during Linda's life. I will admit that Paul's re-immersion into that world started with Heather Mills around 2001 because there is no doubt that Heather likes the spotlight. But Heather Mills came from nothing, she lived out on the street in her later teens and young adulthood, she had to beg, borrow and steal and as Bobby D. said, "when you ain't got nothing , you got nothing to lose." I can cut her some slack for never having it easy, she is a street brawler.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 15, 2015 14:59:11 GMT -5
My admiration of John Lennon has nothing to do with his sexual activities throughout his life and certainly not any verbal or physical abuse he may have perpetrated on any lover of his. That is a chapter of his life John Lennon himself was ashamed of and tried even up to his death to make up for. For instance, lost in John's murder was the very honest dialog between a husband and wife in an imperfect marriage as chronicled in the music of Double Fantasy. As an older teen, I didn't mind at all Yoko's songs on that album but I focused more on John's thus missing the bigger picture of the album as an audio "heartplay." I have realized since that I was missing, "the other half of the sky." But I have never written, "Atta boy John for shagging Robert Freeman's wife, Maureen Cleave, Eleanor Bron, May Pang" or whoever. Nor do I like that John hurt and humiliated Yoko emotionally on Election night 1972. John beat himself up for that one the rest of his life. Very good points here, John! You're right too about Lennon beating himself up with guilt the rest of his life after that 1972 election drunken devastation. Don't let 'em play that "what about John Lennon??" game, Huck!
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 15, 2015 15:06:00 GMT -5
Yoko couldn't get a wall up between John and the others fast enough (something I have seen happen sometimes when friends join up with a new partner). The extent to which John was happy with this isn't relevant to the point itself. Sure, it's very relevant to the point itself ... because if John really WANTED to get away from The Beatles -- and if Yoko was indeed motivated in such a direction as you say -- than Yoko was actually standing by her man, helping him out, etc. (Unless, of course, you're actually perturbed by the popular notion that "Yoko broke up 'our' precious Beatles", and not so much about John's welfare). Yoko was the perfect soul mate for John. Definitely not for possessive Beatles Fans, however.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Feb 15, 2015 15:09:56 GMT -5
John Lennon! Yoko Ono! Joe Karlosi! (and dare we even add --- Heathen Mills??)
|
|
|
Post by bluecake on Feb 15, 2015 16:33:01 GMT -5
So, John, is your criteria that someone can do bad, but as long as they admit it, they're off the hook? Certainly John never "beat himself up" over his behavior towards women in public. He acknowledged it, which is NOT the same, nor is it the same as making amends. He cheated on Yoko, for example, after his interviews where he acknowledged that his treated women badly. Yoko herself talked about the election night incident and how humiliating it was after John's death, and she never mentioned John apologizing or making it up to her.
Tell us, also, how John made up for his behavior to Cynthia or May Pang. Because in reality, he dumped them coldly and erased them from his life. Your argument is that John may have felt badly about it, and maybe he did. But we can never know that, and who cares anyway? What John FELT is meaningless without an attempt to either stop the behavior or make it up to the people he wronged. He not only acted terribly towards Cynthia in the divorce but he pinched every penny to try and avoid paying her a fair amount, and continued to act unfairly towards her until his death.
Nicole has now posted many quotes where Paul (and Linda) talked about how their marriage wasn't perfect, they argued, times were tough, etc. Yet you're still obsessed with the image of Paul and Linda having a perfect marriage and act like it's something Paul created, when in reality he actively debunked that many times. By your standards, Paul did exactly what you wanted: he talked about how he wasn't perfect, wasn't always nice to Linda, they argued etc. He's been open about it. But you refuse to acknowledge it. At the same time, John made vague confessions about mistreating women (nothing specific) and did nothing to make amends or change his behavior, but he gets a pass from you.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 15, 2015 17:42:21 GMT -5
Steve, I had read your interview with Francie. I believe her that Jane didn't walk in on them in the bedroom, but her timeline is still off. Paul and Francie were dating by early June 1968. Paul and Jane were definitely still dating at that time as they attended a Scafffold concert together on May 31 and attended Mike McCartney's wedding together on June 8. Jane's announcement of the called off engagement occurred on the show "Dee Time" on July 20, 1968. In that interview, she also noted that she was not the one who ended the engagement (which implies Paul did via his cheating). I will be the first to agree that Francie's timeline can't be trusted. She was a very interesting person. She would call me and we talked a lot. Haven't talked to her in years, though. I keep wondering if she's still around.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 15, 2015 18:35:35 GMT -5
So, John, is your criteria that someone can do bad, but as long as they admit it, they're off the hook? Certainly John never "beat himself up" over his behavior towards women in public. He acknowledged it, which is NOT the same, nor is it the same as making amends. He cheated on Yoko, for example, after his interviews where he acknowledged that his treated women badly. Yoko herself talked about the election night incident and how humiliating it was after John's death, and she never mentioned John apologizing or making it up to her. Tell us, also, how John made up for his behavior to Cynthia or May Pang. Because in reality, he dumped them coldly and erased them from his life. Your argument is that John may have felt badly about it, and maybe he did. But we can never know that, and who cares anyway? What John FELT is meaningless without an attempt to either stop the behavior or make it up to the people he wronged. He not only acted terribly towards Cynthia in the divorce but he pinched every penny to try and avoid paying her a fair amount, and continued to act unfairly towards her until his death. Nicole has now posted many quotes where Paul (and Linda) talked about how their marriage wasn't perfect, they argued, times were tough, etc. Yet you're still obsessed with the image of Paul and Linda having a perfect marriage and act like it's something Paul created, when in reality he actively debunked that many times. By your standards, Paul did exactly what you wanted: he talked about how he wasn't perfect, wasn't always nice to Linda, they argued etc. He's been open about it. But you refuse to acknowledge it. At the same time, John made vague confessions about mistreating women (nothing specific) and did nothing to make amends or change his behavior, but he gets a pass from you. The weird thing is that Cynthia and May still love John to this day and can't stop talking about him but the same is not true as to Jane and Heather as to Paul. Go figure!
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 15, 2015 19:00:38 GMT -5
I find it hard to believe Heather ever really loved Paul at all. He was a meal ticket for her to gain wealth and fame. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 15, 2015 19:32:23 GMT -5
The weird thing is that Cynthia and May still love John to this day and can't stop talking about him but the same is not true as to Jane and Heather as to Paul. Go figure! Why is that weird? And 'talking about him' isn't always a positive thing, anyway. Heather has talked about Paul an awful lot since the separation for someone who has claimed they'd never and have never badmouthed him. As for Jane, I completely respect her silence on anything Paul-related. She is not required to speak about that time, and that neither reflects poorly or well on the relationship itself. Staying silent doesn't mean the relationship or Paul was/were horrible, nor does speaking a lot mean that those people view their relationship/John with rose-coloured glasses and praise him incessantly. Have a picture of Gerald Scarfe (Jane's husband) with Mary McCartney. For kicks.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 15, 2015 19:34:05 GMT -5
Steve, I had read your interview with Francie. I believe her that Jane didn't walk in on them in the bedroom, but her timeline is still off. Paul and Francie were dating by early June 1968. Paul and Jane were definitely still dating at that time as they attended a Scafffold concert together on May 31 and attended Mike McCartney's wedding together on June 8. Jane's announcement of the called off engagement occurred on the show "Dee Time" on July 20, 1968. In that interview, she also noted that she was not the one who ended the engagement (which implies Paul did via his cheating). I will be the first to agree that Francie's timeline can't be trusted. She was a very interesting person. She would call me and we talked a lot. Haven't talked to her in years, though. I keep wondering if she's still around. Francie's interactions and stories on the rec.music.beatles board back in the Nineties didn't exactly help her credibility on other matters, let us say...
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Feb 15, 2015 21:02:06 GMT -5
Yoko couldn't get a wall up between John and the others fast enough (something I have seen happen sometimes when friends join up with a new partner). The extent to which John was happy with this isn't relevant to the point itself. Sure, it's very relevant to the point itself ... because if John really WANTED to get away from The Beatles -- and if Yoko was indeed motivated in such a direction as you say -- than Yoko was actually standing by her man, helping him out, etc. (Unless, of course, you're actually perturbed by the popular notion that "Yoko broke up 'our' precious Beatles", and not so much about John's welfare). Yoko was the perfect soul mate for John. Definitely not for possessive Beatles Fans, however. So we may have a situation where Yoko, seeing how badly John wanted to leave the Beatles, leapt in and facilitated it for him. Or we may have a situation where Yoko wanted to prise John away from the Beatles, and John realised that suited his purposes and leaped aboard. Maybe they are essentially the same thing. Maybe it's not worth even considering whether there is a practical difference between them. But I'm still inclined towards the second one - I think it was a Yoko initiative thing rather than a John initiative, and that's the only thing I was saying.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 15, 2015 23:58:14 GMT -5
Yoko wasn't the best thing for John musically. He may not have had the confidence to leave the Beatles without her encouragement.
He did pretty good in the 60s being insecure and unhappy. It was certainly his best period for song writing. Exchanging Paul for Yoko (musically speaking), was not the best idea.
Not everyone is happy being happy. They prefer having discord. Leaving the Beatles did not seem to make John Mr Happy. If you are going to be miserable, might as well be miserable in the biggest, critically respected band there ever was.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 16, 2015 7:01:54 GMT -5
Have been sorting through some Paul interviews today, and was listening to one from 1982 where he AGAIN talks about his imperfect marriage. JSYK. Q: "What's easier-- dealing with Linda the musician or Linda the housewife?"
PAUL: "Linda as a musician is easy. She's easy because she'll do what you want and she's not that much of a creator. On this album George Martin and I wrote the harmony parts out for her. Linda as a housewife? Well now, that's emotional. That's real life. That's not as easy as music. I love it. I love it. I wouldn't change a thing. But it's hard work. It's hard graft."
Q: "Just like other married people?"
PAUL: "Yeah. And you don't even have to be married. You might be living in a house with just one other person. That's what difficult. Relating to people. I don't know how I would compare against anyone else, or how Linda would compare against anyone else. Listen, the truth is, we have our ups and downs like everyone else. Sometimes it's just so terrific you wouldn't believe it. Sometimes we're rowing. That seems to be the story with most homo sapiens."It's also an interview where he talks A LOT about his PR Guy image, which I always find interesting. www.beatlesinterviews.org/db1982.0400.beatles.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 7:38:08 GMT -5
The weird thing is that Cynthia and May still love John to this day and can't stop talking about him but the same is not true as to Jane and Heather as to Paul. Go figure! Why is that weird? And 'talking about him' isn't always a positive thing, anyway. Heather has talked about Paul an awful lot since the separation for someone who has claimed they'd never and have never badmouthed him. As for Jane, I completely respect her silence on anything Paul-related. She is not required to speak about that time, and that neither reflects poorly or well on the relationship itself. Staying silent doesn't mean the relationship or Paul was/were horrible, nor does speaking a lot mean that those people view their relationship/John with rose-coloured glasses and praise him incessantly. Have a picture of Gerald Scarfe (Jane's husband) with Mary McCartney. For kicks. OOOH she's a good sort Mary, i need to stop those rude thoughts that are entering my mind when i look at that photo...
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 16, 2015 10:37:08 GMT -5
Have been sorting through some Paul interviews today, and was listening to one from 1982 where he AGAIN talks about his imperfect marriage. JSYK. Q: "What's easier-- dealing with Linda the musician or Linda the housewife?"
PAUL: "Linda as a musician is easy. She's easy because she'll do what you want and she's not that much of a creator. On this album George Martin and I wrote the harmony parts out for her. Linda as a housewife? Well now, that's emotional. That's real life. That's not as easy as music. I love it. I love it. I wouldn't change a thing. But it's hard work. It's hard graft."
I think the comments on Linda as a musical partner were the most interesting things in that interview clip. I have never read Paul saying anything close to that before. It is frank.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 16, 2015 13:22:49 GMT -5
Just for kicks.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Feb 16, 2015 13:57:25 GMT -5
Just for kicks. That is photo-shopped. Paul and Jane were never together for that picture.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Feb 16, 2015 14:07:03 GMT -5
I will be the first to agree that Francie's timeline can't be trusted. She was a very interesting person. She would call me and we talked a lot. Haven't talked to her in years, though. I keep wondering if she's still around. Francie's interactions and stories on the rec.music.beatles board back in the Nineties didn't exactly help her credibility on other matters, let us say... She also raised a storm when she joined a McCartney fan group. If you are familiar with her book, she makes some strange accusations about him. She repeated those stories to me in our conversations.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Feb 16, 2015 14:35:21 GMT -5
I think Paul and Jane were trying to recreate this photo:
|
|
cosmo
Very Clean
Posts: 264
|
Post by cosmo on Feb 16, 2015 20:31:36 GMT -5
I don't come here for a few days and I miss this big argument, about which I have definite opinions! First of all, I reject ANY words which indicate that women should be held to a different sexual moral standard than men. I would NEVER label Linda a groupie any more than I would call Paul (or any of the Beatles) a slut for sleeping with dozens of girls. Yes, the idea that only women are "sluts" when they have sex with people they are not married to, and not men, is bullshit --- but neither should be called ANYTHING, because all men and all women have the right to have sex whenever they want to, providing they have a consenting partner and have not vowed to remain faithful to one person. So this idea of belittling either Linda or Heather Mills because they had sex lives is just not on! I wish everyone would quit debating who was "worse" -- "groupie" Linda or "slutty" Heather. Grr! Paul and Linda had a real marriage- ups and downs like all of us-- and its longevity speaks to the character of each party. Paul and Heather Mills had a short marriage. I doubt whether there was ever true love on either side, although I am more willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt because I think that he was looking to fill the hole in his heart whereas I think Heather Mills was looking for money and fame. I believe that she was a dishonest person, a narcissist, and a gold digger. (Although neither Linda nor Nancy had the amount of money Paul does, each had enough that they should not be accused of gold digging.) I think she was a terrible episode in Paul's life, although I know that he is glad to have Beatrice. It bugs me when you defend her, John, because she was so bad for Paul, and I figure that anyone who likes (loves?) the Beatles enough to visit a forum dedicated to them 30 plus years after they broke up must like and admire the individual members of the group - don't you? You should be on Paul's side here!
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Feb 16, 2015 23:13:11 GMT -5
Food for thought, an article from Germaine Greer, a noted feminist theorist, academic and journalist, on the controversy over Heather Mills and Ms. Greer's shock not so much at men's hatred of Heather but of women's hatred of Mills and she concludes that it is the curse of Paul's fame and money as a rock star and Ms. Greer specifically notes some similarities in the pursuit of Paul by another woman in Paul's life before Heather: www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/germaine-greer-pop-bitch-479025.htmlMy earlier stated opinion that Linda pursued Paul as aggresively as Heather(and that was my only point on Linda's past, that she was known to pursue rock stars) aren't made up by me. I read things like this article by Ms, Greer and other sources, including the two books already cited in this Thread, and I draw an opinion from the facts stated. My opinion may be wrong but I am accused of making up the facts behind my line of thought. I have never said that Paul and Linda did not have a loving marriage. I questioned why Heather is criticized for locking in on Paul and pursuing him when Linda did the exact same thing 30 some years earlier? It is great that things worked out for Paul and Linda and it is sad that it did not for Paul and Heather(for whatever reasons).
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Feb 17, 2015 0:01:44 GMT -5
Just for kicks. That is photo-shopped. Paul and Jane were never together for that picture. Yeah, I know low basso. Just for kicks. my perverse sense of humor and all. This thread is full of crazy s***t.
|
|
|
Post by nicole21290 on Feb 17, 2015 0:34:38 GMT -5
Oh, Germaine Greer. Yeah, I'll leave her opinions on feminism elsewhere, I think. Much of what she says these days is terribly outdated and bordering on offensive: lumiere.net.nz/index.php/the-life-and-times-of-germaine-greer/My main issue with Heather is NOT in her pursuit of Paul - it is in the many lies she has told in her life (before and after Paul), the way she handled the separation and divorce (mudslinging and lying again, anyone?), and her general narcissistic tendencies I see every time I see her interviewed. Even if Linda was trying to 'bag a Beatle', I never got the sense that she would deliberately cast unfounded aspersions on him as a father and husband, or that she would try and embezzle money from him when she found herself in a sticky situation, or that she would impersonate a journalist or co-opt her friend's childhood abuse for her own autobiography, to take a few examples.
|
|