|
Post by sexysadie on Aug 20, 2008 6:57:33 GMT -5
Rich, if I recall, you took me to task for "snarkily" criticizing Nancy by asking if I know her. If you are going to defend her, might I ask you the same question? Admittedly, we can only speculate from what information is known. But I see things much differently than you do. No offense, but if you want to know what a woman's true motivations are, ask another woman.
Apparently Paul and Nancy do enjoy each other's company. I certainly would hope so. But that begs the question of why Nancy was interested in Paul in the first place. This isn't like other relationships where people are attracted to each other because of physical and personality traits. She knew who he is, that he's wealthy, famous, titled. You simply cannot discount that. If he was just any twenty-years-older man, would she even have bothered? I think not. Any reasonable person would look at this relationship and see red flags, lots of 'em, and the fact that Paul went through the divorce from hell but five minutes ago, and that Nancy wasn't eager to push through her own divorce until Paul entered the picture, isn't the half of it. Any reasonable person can see that Paul is repeating his mistakes with Heather and expecting a different result--for example, not dating enough before "settling" on someone, focusing on a much younger woman, allowing his emotional neediness to override rational thought. I don't agree that he behaved admirably during the divorce, and see his actions as an attempt to evade responsibility for both choosing to marry Heather, and for the marriage's eventual failure. I think he was--and still is--in denial about his role in the whole sorry mess, and that screams repeat performance. Any reasonable person can look at Nancy's background and actions and conclude that her values stand in stark contrast to the values Paul was raised with (and which made his marriage to Linda so successful), and that her tony lifestyle in the upper echelons of NYC society is a world away from the McCartneys' low-key existence on the Peasmarsh farm. She has clearly encouraged him to jump body and soul into this relationship when, if she truly cared for him as a person, she would have counselled him to get his head straight and take some time before going 24/7 with her, or anyone else. She's no less an opportunist than Heather, taking advantage of Paul when he is at his neediest and most vulnerable. You say there is no evidence that he is thinking about marriage, but even if he isn't (and I'm not at all sure that's the case), I guarantee you SHE is. I can believe that the road trip was something Paul had long wanted to do--he is old enough to remember "get your kicks on Route 66," and liked driving aimlessly with Linda. But I don't believe travelling cross-country in an old Bronco was some longtime dream of a silver-spoon gal from NYC. It was, however, a helluva opportunity for her to make Paul dependent on her constant company. No, I don't know she has bad motives, but you don't know she doesn't. I see the choice to ignore the obvious and worrisome warning signs, and attribute nothing but the purest of motives to Nancy, as extremely naive. It's the same mindset so many of the fans chose to adopt when Heather came on the scene. Paul is happy, if he thinks this woman is wonderful, then she must be. Be oh-so-openminded and supportive, it will all work out for them. What is that definition of insanity again? For both Paul and his more worshipful fans? Paul's own children may feel positively about Nancy--and her money, perhaps?--but having travelled this road before and being well acquainted with the deep ditch at its end, they are reportedly loathe to don the rose-colored glasses when it comes to another marriage. They would either have to be completely uncaring or idiots NOT to be concerned and wary. Yet I don't see anyone taking a whack at them for leaving the champagne on ice.
I do have reasons--many of which I haven't even mentioned--for having very serious doubts about Nancy and the whole relationship. Aside from the fact that Paul thinks Nancy is The One--before the ink on the divorce decree is even dry, yet--what are your reasons for thinking they aren't being foolishly hasty? That they are a good match? There is no evidence, and it's really not tenable, that they have been friends for decades, and the initial story that the two families knew each other was later discounted. In any event, the McCartneys spent limited time in the Hamptons. And practically speaking, they and the Blakemans were far apart in age, and they had no similarly-aged children in common. In that Paul was married to Linda, and Nancy to her husband, I very much doubt the two of them, if they knew each other at all, would have been "close friends." I agree that Paul should play the field, and especially try dating some women his own age, but that's not what he's doing. How can anyone look at Paul and Nancy and not say "too much, too soon?" Good luck finding a professional who works with divorced people who would think this relationship is a good idea. In fact, you don't even need to consider what kind of woman Nancy is, or what her motives might be, to see the biggest red flag of all--that Paul cannot stand being alone. Just look at everything he was willing to overlook about Heather and her whackadoodle behavior, including warnings from friends, family, and the press--and a $40,000 engagement ring thrown off a balcony in a fit of rage--because he was obsessed with maintaining that relationship. Has anyone here chanting "Paul and Nancy Forever" been honest enough to own up to embracing and defending Heather when Paul went ass over teacups for her?
{{{{{crickets}}}}}
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 20, 2008 11:33:13 GMT -5
Rich, if I recall, you took me to task for "snarkily" criticizing Nancy by asking if I know her. If you are going to defend her, might I ask you the same question? Admittedly, we can only speculate from what information is known. But I see things much differently than you do. No offense, but if you want to know what a woman's true motivations are, ask another woman. Apparently Paul and Nancy do enjoy each other's company. I certainly would hope so. But that begs the question of why Nancy was interested in Paul in the first place. This isn't like other relationships where people are attracted to each other because of physical and personality traits. She knew who he is, that he's wealthy, famous, titled. You simply cannot discount that. If he was just any twenty-years-older man, would she even have bothered? I think not. Any reasonable person would look at this relationship and see red flags, lots of 'em, and the fact that Paul went through the divorce from hell but five minutes ago, and that Nancy wasn't eager to push through her own divorce until Paul entered the picture, isn't the half of it. Any reasonable person can see that Paul is repeating his mistakes with Heather and expecting a different result--for example, not dating enough before "settling" on someone, focusing on a much younger woman, allowing his emotional neediness to override rational thought. How can you conclude that there is no physical or personality attraction between the two of them? That's a rather grandiose statement. Paul is older, but he is still cute for an old guy. He can be charming. He's not exactly a doddering geezer. And how do you know he is "settling" on Nancy? Yes, they're apparently dating, but we don't know what kind of commitment, if any, they have made to one another. Maybe they just enjoy each other's company right now.
|
|
|
Post by sallyg on Aug 20, 2008 14:02:20 GMT -5
Personally, my opinion is that there is not enough evidence for me so far to be able to tell if Nancy is genuine or if she has an agenda. I think she is pretty well liked by the media. I think it's a remarkable that the media has not dug up any ex-boyfriends or her estranged husband, friends (or ex-friends), or former employees to dish any dirt on her. Either there is none or the media just hasn't bothered. No one in the media has made any snide comments so far concerning Nancy's resemblance to Mary McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 20, 2008 17:43:14 GMT -5
Rich, if I recall, you took me to task for "snarkily" criticizing Nancy by asking if I know her. If you are going to defend her, might I ask you the same question? Admittedly, we can only speculate from what information is known. But I see things much differently than you do. No offense, but if you want to know what a woman's true motivations are, ask another woman. Apparently Paul and Nancy do enjoy each other's company. I certainly would hope so. But that begs the question of why Nancy was interested in Paul in the first place. This isn't like other relationships where people are attracted to each other because of physical and personality traits. She knew who he is, that he's wealthy, famous, titled. You simply cannot discount that. If he was just any twenty-years-older man, would she even have bothered? I think not. Any reasonable person would look at this relationship and see red flags, lots of 'em, and the fact that Paul went through the divorce from hell but five minutes ago, and that Nancy wasn't eager to push through her own divorce until Paul entered the picture, isn't the half of it. Any reasonable person can see that Paul is repeating his mistakes with Heather and expecting a different result--for example, not dating enough before "settling" on someone, focusing on a much younger woman, allowing his emotional neediness to override rational thought. I don't agree that he behaved admirably during the divorce, and see his actions as an attempt to evade responsibility for both choosing to marry Heather, and for the marriage's eventual failure. I think he was--and still is--in denial about his role in the whole sorry mess, and that screams repeat performance. Any reasonable person can look at Nancy's background and actions and conclude that her values stand in stark contrast to the values Paul was raised with (and which made his marriage to Linda so successful), and that her tony lifestyle in the upper echelons of NYC society is a world away from the McCartneys' low-key existence on the Peasmarsh farm. She has clearly encouraged him to jump body and soul into this relationship when, if she truly cared for him as a person, she would have counselled him to get his head straight and take some time before going 24/7 with her, or anyone else. She's no less an opportunist than Heather, taking advantage of Paul when he is at his neediest and most vulnerable. You say there is no evidence that he is thinking about marriage, but even if he isn't (and I'm not at all sure that's the case), I guarantee you SHE is. I can believe that the road trip was something Paul had long wanted to do--he is old enough to remember "get your kicks on Route 66," and liked driving aimlessly with Linda. But I don't believe travelling cross-country in an old Bronco was some longtime dream of a silver-spoon gal from NYC. It was, however, a helluva opportunity for her to make Paul dependent on her constant company. No, I don't know she has bad motives, but you don't know she doesn't. I see the choice to ignore the obvious and worrisome warning signs, and attribute nothing but the purest of motives to Nancy, as extremely naive. It's the same mindset so many of the fans chose to adopt when Heather came on the scene. Paul is happy, if he thinks this woman is wonderful, then she must be. Be oh-so-openminded and supportive, it will all work out for them. What is that definition of insanity again? For both Paul and his more worshipful fans? Paul's own children may feel positively about Nancy--and her money, perhaps?--but having travelled this road before and being well acquainted with the deep ditch at its end, they are reportedly loathe to don the rose-colored glasses when it comes to another marriage. They would either have to be completely uncaring or idiots NOT to be concerned and wary. Yet I don't see anyone taking a whack at them for leaving the champagne on ice. I do have reasons--many of which I haven't even mentioned--for having very serious doubts about Nancy and the whole relationship. Aside from the fact that Paul thinks Nancy is The One--before the ink on the divorce decree is even dry, yet--what are your reasons for thinking they aren't being foolishly hasty? That they are a good match? There is no evidence, and it's really not tenable, that they have been friends for decades, and the initial story that the two families knew each other was later discounted. In any event, the McCartneys spent limited time in the Hamptons. And practically speaking, they and the Blakemans were far apart in age, and they had no similarly-aged children in common. In that Paul was married to Linda, and Nancy to her husband, I very much doubt the two of them, if they knew each other at all, would have been "close friends." I agree that Paul should play the field, and especially try dating some women his own age, but that's not what he's doing. How can anyone look at Paul and Nancy and not say "too much, too soon?" Good luck finding a professional who works with divorced people who would think this relationship is a good idea. In fact, you don't even need to consider what kind of woman Nancy is, or what her motives might be, to see the biggest red flag of all--that Paul cannot stand being alone. Just look at everything he was willing to overlook about Heather and her whackadoodle behavior, including warnings from friends, family, and the press--and a $40,000 engagement ring thrown off a balcony in a fit of rage--because he was obsessed with maintaining that relationship. Has anyone here chanting "Paul and Nancy Forever" been honest enough to own up to embracing and defending Heather when Paul went ass over teacups for her? {{{{{crickets}}}}} Brevity is the soul of wit. ;D Can we pass a law here that paragraphs should not be more than 10 lines long? By the time my poor feeble eyes get to the end, my pitifully feeble memory has forgotten what came earlier. Can I please hear an "oye" for "special accomodations"?
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Aug 22, 2008 4:35:16 GMT -5
I won't be offended if you don't read it, sayne. I've never claimed that I couldn't benefit from a good editor. At least I'm not averaging 25 posts a day like a woman on a prior message board did.
Anyway, the whole Nancy issue may be moot, and sooner rather than later. There is something odd about her, and even odder about Nancy and Paul together. Actually, that's what's odd--they don't LOOK like they are "together." Paul and Linda were always so relaxed and happy around each other, quick to smile and touch. A body language expert once described them as having "mutual gaze." Paul even looked more comfortable and happy around Heather in the early days than he does now around the rich gal. Seeing the pictures and the paparazzi video of Nancy and Paul...why is she dutifully trudging along at a respectful distance behind The Big Dawg? Were they in Saudi Arabia or something? I'd love for a body language expert have a go at that video. It's obvious that Nancy has never liked Paul's celebrity, but in this instance she looks incredibly uncomfortable. Where is the walking side-by-side, the holding hands, the guy being attentive to his new girlfriend? Even the one picture I've seen of them posing together looks exactly that--posed. Unnatural. Come to think of it, the video of the two of them arriving in Quebec had them seated at opposite ends of the car. Ah, the euphoria of new love. Oh, is that me being cynical again? So my question is, why is she purposely putting herself in a situation that makes her so nervous and uneasy? Being with a preternaturally famous man, I mean? Why is she putting up with it? With HIM? Yes, it does make me even more suspicious of her motives. But I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for her. Paul prances arrogantly along the street, acting like a jerk to the photographers, turning to perfunctorily check on her but once. Heather, of course, never would have exhibited such submissiveness--she couldn't jump in front of a camera and start mouthing off fast enough. But I don't ever recall Paul leaving Linda ten paces behind, nor can I imagine Linda meekly putting up with that kind of treatment. They always came across as equals, as happy to be together, as a couple. You could tell they respected each other. Where was Paul's respect for Nancy and her feelings? He surely knows she doesn't like media attention, and knew there were photographers around. He easily could have gotten a taxi to take them home, but instead chose to expose her to the paparazzi by walking for several blocks along public streets. And then, instead of protectively walking with her, he barges ahead, calling a female photographer names as he goes. Just to make things really interesting. One article about Nancy did say that she hated playing the political wife--the Republican political wife, btw, and here she is now with Al Gore's BFF--but that she supportively, albeit unenthusiastically, attended all the rubber chicken dinners anyway. Perhaps she will go off to the farm to feed the animals, or whatever else Paul tells her to do. He seems to be dominating her, not that Paul hasn't always had an overbearing personality. And after Heather, little wonder that he wants someone he can boss around. Heather could sap every drop of machismo out of the most masculine guy in the world, and still have energy left to go on GMTV and brag about the finer details of how she did it. Nancy doesn't look to have what was humorously described in the old Mary Tyler Moore Show as "spunk." And, as a result of being with Heather, it appears that Paul has morphed into Lou Grant. He hates spunk. Maybe they are a match made in heaven after all, but this ain't the stuff of healthy, long-lived relationships.
Yep, it is a bit odd.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 22, 2008 11:11:32 GMT -5
Maybe this unpleasant encounter with the paparazzi will make Nancy reconsider being involved with Paul. If she didn't like being a political wife, then this will really get under her skin.
And sexysadie, thanks for pointing out that Nancy and her ex were Republican party activists. That doesn't really square with Paul's liberal leanings. I sort of think this relationship will run its course and die.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 22, 2008 15:37:42 GMT -5
I won't be offended if you don't read it, sayne. I've never claimed that I couldn't benefit from a good editor. Don't worry. Your most recent post's largest paragraph was right at 10 lines. Whew!
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 22, 2008 17:15:24 GMT -5
I won't be offended if you don't read it, sayne. I've never claimed that I couldn't benefit from a good editor. At least I'm not averaging 25 posts a day like a woman on a prior message board did. Who was that?
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Aug 23, 2008 12:50:03 GMT -5
Thankfully, she's not here--yet! I doubt Steve would let her get a foothold. The only reason she was able to run roughshod over that board was because the moderator didn't have the time, and necessary intelligence, to oversee her board in an effective manner. BTW, it's not only that Nancy is a Republican, she's not vegetarian. Or wasn't. Last report I saw indicated that she's had a "conversion." More evidence that she's under Paul's thumb? Or, at the very least, that she is eager to please him? Not that one bodes any better than the other for the future of the relationship. If that video had shown a woman stridently bopping down the street, directing the occasional personal insult at a photographer, while her male partner wordlessly straggled behind studying the cracks in the sidewalk, what would people say? Would they label the woman with the "b" word? Would they think the man is whipped? Now, don't spend too much time pondering...not that you have to. There is a myth about Paul that he loves strong and independent women. He doesn't. How that narrative came into being I don't know, maybe because the public saw Linda establishing her own persona as the marriage progressed. But privately she catered to Paul, even subjecting herself to relentless ridicule by appearing on stage with him--not because it was what she wanted, but because it was what he wanted. Way back when, he tried to throw cold water on Jane Asher's career and ambition and push her into the same life of domesticity that Linda embraced. No need to explain Heather and why she didn't work. That would put me way over the paragraph allotment! I don't think Paul showed any respect to Nancy, and showed even less to that female photographer. To her credit, "fatso" fought back. I have no explanation for Nancy's actions. Either she needs to grow some self-esteem, or come to grips with the fact that she isn't cut out to be with a celebrity. But then maybe she is a gal with a plan. I guess there are women who are willing to play doormat to rope in a man, even in 2008. Particularly if the man is a rich and famous music legend, and can make her Lady Nancy. Whatever is going on here, good luck to her. She's gonna need it.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 23, 2008 13:52:39 GMT -5
But privately she catered to Paul, even subjecting herself to relentless ridicule by appearing on stage with him--not because it was what she wanted, but because it was what he wanted. Thank you! I once wrote on the old Board that Paul's forcing Linda, a nonmusician, to go on stage and be in a band with an ex-Beatle and other professional musicians was a cruel way to show his love because she was ridiculed, nay hammered. I thought that it was the most selfish thing Paul could have done. He either wanted her there to boost his own confidence or it was part of the gamesmanship with John Lennon, "If John can do that with Yoko then..." Either way, it was all at Linda's expense. I was nearly crucified and I got all the, "Well I like her harmony vocals and she got pretty good on keyboards." Studio tricks can make anyone sound good in the background vocally, even back then, and she never ever was a musician, she played the keyboard by numbers. Maybe Paul needed her moral support but he was thinking of only himself because he made her the butt of many rock and roll jokes(and diminished his own reputation as being a lightweight). I'm not knocking Linda on this, I'm knocking Paul. Maybe Nancy can sing and dance.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 23, 2008 15:44:43 GMT -5
If Paul liked strong, independent women, he would still be with Jane Asher.
|
|
cosmo
Very Clean
Posts: 264
|
Post by cosmo on Aug 23, 2008 19:47:25 GMT -5
I don't think Paul made Linda get up on stage over her protestations - I think it was more that they were in their own little bubble of "hey wouldn't this be fun!"
Linda sat in on most if not all of Paul's press interviews, to judge by photos and text, so I don't think she was that averse to the public role Paul supposedly thrust her into. I think if she had truly just wanted to be home with the kids, she would have been. I think that being onstage with him (singing, pretending to sing, playing keyboards or pretending to play them, whatever the case was) - it was what she understood to be the price of being with him 24/7. I never thought she looked too unhappy up there. Maybe later on she thought "what the hey was I thinking?" - but back when it was happening, I think she was just swept up in Paul's dream and enjoying it with him.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see Linda's presence on stage or on the albums as any kind of abuse or bullying on Paul's part.
But on the Nancy issue - I vote with those who say not another wedding, please, Paul!
|
|
|
Post by melody on Aug 24, 2008 11:01:27 GMT -5
I don't think Paul made Linda get up on stage over her protestations - I think it was more that they were in their own little bubble of "hey wouldn't this be fun!" Linda sat in on most if not all of Paul's press interviews, to judge by photos and text, so I don't think she was that averse to the public role Paul supposedly thrust her into. I think if she had truly just wanted to be home with the kids, she would have been. I think that being onstage with him (singing, pretending to sing, playing keyboards or pretending to play them, whatever the case was) - it was what she understood to be the price of being with him 24/7. I never thought she looked too unhappy up there. Maybe later on she thought "what the hey was I thinking?" - but back when it was happening, I think she was just swept up in Paul's dream and enjoying it with him. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see Linda's presence on stage or on the albums as any kind of abuse or bullying on Paul's part. But on the Nancy issue - I vote with those who say not another wedding, please, Paul!This has always been my opinon as well. He needed the moral support especially in those early years when he was a mess. She took her marriage vows to him seriously, bless her. She loved him and wanted to support him and wanted to be with him. Being togeather, being a couple, over-road any other consideration. Paul weathered a lot of criticism too for that stance from the rock world, having his wife in the band. All of Linda's interviews through the years supports this view: He asked her if she would enjoy performing and wanted to join the band and she said yes of her own free will, because she's a joiner and willing to try things, and after the initial terror, came to enjoy it, even having some small musicial ambitions of her own, just for fun. She's sounds pretty defiant about her own choices in the 1976 WOA Rolling Stone Interview, esp. with this excerpt; "I mention the criticism that has already built over her celebration of her place in the kitchen. She swivels on her electric piano bench. "My answer," she says, "is always 'Fuck off!'" She continues, in a weird hybrid of accents from England, New York, and finishing school. "Look, we had a great loon in the studios that night. All the hung up people don't have to buy it, don't have to listen to it. It's like having parents on your back, this criticizing. I've grown up. I had a great night last night, this is a great band, and this is great fun. And that's all we care about." That defiance remained in her later interviews even when she half thought "Well, maybe I should have said no because I wasn't a musician, I could have saved myself some grief" but on the other hand, scew em'!... the important thing was to be togeather.
|
|
|
Post by winstonoboogie on Aug 24, 2008 12:01:50 GMT -5
I don't think Paul made Linda get up on stage over her protestations - I think it was more that they were in their own little bubble of "hey wouldn't this be fun!" Linda sat in on most if not all of Paul's press interviews, to judge by photos and text, so I don't think she was that averse to the public role Paul supposedly thrust her into. I think if she had truly just wanted to be home with the kids, she would have been. I think that being onstage with him (singing, pretending to sing, playing keyboards or pretending to play them, whatever the case was) - it was what she understood to be the price of being with him 24/7. I never thought she looked too unhappy up there. Maybe later on she thought "what the hey was I thinking?" - but back when it was happening, I think she was just swept up in Paul's dream and enjoying it with him. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see Linda's presence on stage or on the albums as any kind of abuse or bullying on Paul's part. But on the Nancy issue - I vote with those who say not another wedding, please, Paul! She continues, in a weird hybrid of accents from England, New York, and finishing school. ;D At the risk of speaking ill of the dead, this also puzzled me...I know it's been mentioned in previous threads (source for another thread? :
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Aug 26, 2008 5:11:44 GMT -5
Linda's getting defensive about her role in Wings doesn't prove that it was always her deep and abiding desire to appear on stage with Paul. As John pointed out, she had no musical training; she was used to expressing her creativity behind a camera. Why would such a person want to climb onto a public stage and attempt to perform alongside an ex-Beatle? We are either talking huge ego, or certifiable insanity. Linda obviously didn't have the former, or she never could have stayed married to Paul for 30 years (Heather "The Ego" Mills managed to eke out a paltry four). Although the fact that Linda hung in for three decades may give some credence to the insanity theory.... Everything I have read indicates that, at least initially, Linda didn't like performing and suffered from stage fright. Paul could be very critical of her musical inexperience, which occasionally upset her enough to confide to the other members that she hated being in the group. There were instances of her freezing on stage, completely forgetting what she was supposed to play. Sometimes Paul was understanding, sometimes he wasn't. You'll never convince me she enjoyed those early days and that they were just "having fun," or that she was doing what she wanted, rather than what Paul wanted. And I've never understood the argument that she had to be a part of Wings for them to be "together," or for her to provide "moral support." Couples don't need to spend 24 hours a day with each other to have a fulfilling and mutually supportive marriage. She could have shared the road with him without sharing the stage. That was just Paul being obsessive about their relationship, and about his being the one to define its parameters. His "we never spend a night apart" parameters. As for Jane Asher--who was indeed a strong and independent woman--I think it was her insistence on having her own career, which often kept her away from Paul for long periods of time, that prompted him to go into "always gotta be together" mode with Linda. He couldn't control Jane, but Linda was much more accommodating. Let's face it, Paul was a northern boy who was raised with the idea that women "took care" of their men, and that everything else was of secondary importance. He was overbearing in the Beatles, and there's no reason to believe he wasn't overbearing with Linda. Supposedly it was her frustrations with that part of his personality that found their way onto Cookbook Man's tapes. Linda never would have publicly admitted that Paul pushed her into performing with him. Her "screw 'em" remarks were revisionist history. I don't doubt that she eventually did come to adopt that attitude, out of self-preservation if nothing else. But, way back when they were first married, she didn't implore Paul to show her "middle C"--that was all HIS idea. And, for whatever reason, she wasn't about to say no.
|
|
|
Post by richforman on Aug 26, 2008 14:17:37 GMT -5
Sexysadie, I am impressed, your personal knowledge of and insight into Paul and Linda's relationship, your knowledge of her feelings and motivations, how she felt about Paul and everything that happened between them, the inner workings of their relationship and exactly why she said and did the things she did, is as comprehensive as with the Paul and Nancy situation.
We get it. You just don't think very highly of McCartney.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 28, 2008 11:07:01 GMT -5
I ran a search and didn't find this had been discussed. ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY says Paul stopped in Branson to visit with Louise Harrison, and a Beatles museum may be in the works there.
Which reminds me, I saw BEATLE CITY about 20 years ago when it was in Dallas for a year or so. I wonder if something like that is in the works for Branson?
JcS
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Sept 1, 2008 4:51:25 GMT -5
Oh, looky, more snark from rich. You get it? No, I get it--you don't like my saying what I think, but your displeasure doesn't automatically make me wrong, as much as you might want that to be the case. I've been a Beatles fan for 44+ years, and have a long history of being "insightful." Actually, people who know me personally think I'm very perceptive, and a good judge of character. A message board is a place for members to express their opinions, and sometimes disagreement ensues. There are others here stating their viewpoints, theories and insights, but I don't see you trying to shut them down. But then they see everything through the same prism you do, right? Whatever Paul and Linda had going on obviously worked for them. Previously I mentioned how much I respected their marriage and the way they raised their children. I'm hardly the first person to say that Linda kowtowed to Paul, or that Paul is overbearing and controlling. Some of us are logical, common-sense thinkers. Some of us have EYES. Is it really such a leap to suggest that Linda joined Wings because it was what Paul wanted? Or that she got fed up with their relationship from time to time? They were together for 30 years. Duh.... Somewhere in my Beatles collection is a picture of Paul and Linda, around 1980, coming out of a supermarket in East Hampton. Linda is wearing a frumpy housedress straight out of the 1950's, and the two of them are carrying bags of groceries. Just regular folks. Circa 2008, Nancy is spotted exiting an exclusive designer boutique after purchasing a velvet tiger vest (grrr), which perhaps she wore to the trendier-than-trendy restaurant she and Paul now frequent in the Hamptons--where he was recently overheard instructing a waiter to tell the chef to "stick it" for sending out an appetizer with meat in it. Wasn't it only a couple of weeks ago that Paul and Nancy were "roughing it" out on Route 66? So much fun for them, seeing how the other 99.99999% live. Briefly. Long term, living the high life is MUCH more fun. Yes, it's disappointing to me that Paul, in a post-Heather mercenary mindset, has sold out his values and Liverpudlian roots by reflexively pairing off with a much younger heiress/socialite, and embracing her privileged lifestyle. Considering his increasingly rude behavior, Nancy doesn't seem to bring out the best in him--which is what Linda did in spades, and what partners in a relationship should do for each other. Honestly, I can't say at this moment in time whether I like Paul or not, although I deeply appreciate YOUR insight into my thought processes. Why does it matter to you anyway? I don't respect many of Paul's actions since Linda died, and I wouldn't go out of my way to see him perform again--but that's mostly out of financial considerations, and because I don't feel like yawning through C Moon. Again. I have come to dislike, and distrust, Nancy. I view her sychophantic behavior as highly suspicious, even bizarre. These May-December match-ups don't cast either gender in a favorable light. The men look like egotistical fools, and the women look like self-serving schemers. But, gosh, I'm so sorry for expressing such thoughts. My friends who are fans, and with whom I'm in regular contact, aren't idol worshippers, so I'm not used to having to censor myself. Could you please send me a summary of your talking points, rich? I wouldn't want to step on your cyberspacial toes again.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Frankie Crisp on Sept 1, 2008 8:02:06 GMT -5
Verbal diarrhea is a monstrous stream to broach.
|
|
JMG
Very Clean
Posts: 412
|
Post by JMG on Sept 1, 2008 8:34:22 GMT -5
Verbal diarrhea is a monstrous stream to broach. Agreed. Very well stated Sir Frankie Crisp.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 1, 2008 9:45:04 GMT -5
Well, I like reading differing opinions here. Variety is the spice of life. Go sexysadie(and yes, she has rounded on me before too re Cavendish but that's half of the fun).
And C Moon was, is and shall always be lame-ass in concert. A real wanker of a song choice for a concert.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Sept 1, 2008 10:42:31 GMT -5
I'm always interested in reading considered, informed opinions, even if I don't agree with them. I'm not so keen on leaping down someone's throat, or reading someone else doing that. It's sometimes frustrating when you feel an opinion so keenly that you personally almost regard it as fact, yet others see it differently, but that's exactly the sort of point where I try (not always successfully!) to keep my mind open - counter-arguments may just get me to change my mind.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Sept 1, 2008 11:59:14 GMT -5
Oh, looky, more snark from rich. You get it? No, I get it--you don't like my saying what I think, but your displeasure doesn't automatically make me wrong, as much as you might want that to be the case . . . You lost me about here ;D ;D ;D When are the Cliff's Notes version coming out?
|
|
|
Post by richforman on Sept 2, 2008 11:45:09 GMT -5
I'll just say "May-December" doesn't seem to be an accurate description of Paul and Nancy. Something more like August-November maybe.
richforman
|
|
|
Post by sexysadie on Sept 6, 2008 2:34:24 GMT -5
Pictures of them together still look like "Bring Your Daughter To Work Day." It's a significant age difference, any way you cut it. Might I point out--and as someone who, as a teenager in the '60's thought Paul was cuter than cute, this gives me no pleasure--that he isn't exactly a hunka hunka burning love these days? www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1052430/Got-life-Paul-McCartney-searches-luxury-pad-near-girlfriend-New-York.html So back to using common sense and logic--would younger woman like Heather, or Nancy, or the other gals Paul has cozied up to since Linda died, be interested in the guy in those photos if he weren't Paul McCartney? An old guy who wears trainers with suits, in the words of Heather "has boobs bigger than I do," flashes the peace sign and the good old thumbs-up, and still talks like he's twenty? ("That's cool. I got a good vibe off that.") Okay, it isn't Paul's fault that he's losing his hair. But he's a billionaire--he can't get someone to do a better job of styling what hair he has left? His haircuts are laughable, as is the hair dye. If he weren't in denial about aging, he ditch the dye, and start playing Beatles Monopoly with some women his own age. (No, that's not cutesy sexual innuendo--sorry to disappoint. He actually owns the game. Check out the link in the article.) There's a lot to be said for maturely and graciously accepting the fact that life is a series of stages. And chasing after the young gals, bopping out your own baby when you're already a grandfather, and pouring on the hair dye every couple of weeks isn't aging gracefully. Men who act that way are objects of ridicule, and for good reason. Actually, that "fatso" photographer had it right. They ARE old and pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Sept 6, 2008 8:17:07 GMT -5
Pictures of them together still look like "Bring Your Daughter To Work Day." It's a significant age difference, any way you cut it. Might I point out--and as someone who, as a teenager in the '60's thought Paul was cuter than cute, this gives me no pleasure--that he isn't exactly a hunka hunka burning love these days? www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1052430/Got-life-Paul-McCartney-searches-luxury-pad-near-girlfriend-New-York.html So back to using common sense and logic--would younger woman like Heather, or Nancy, or the other gals Paul has cozied up to since Linda died, be interested in the guy in those photos if he weren't Paul McCartney? An old guy who wears trainers with suits, in the words of Heather "has boobs bigger than I do," flashes the peace sign and the good old thumbs-up, and still talks like he's twenty? ("That's cool. I got a good vibe off that.") Okay, it isn't Paul's fault that he's losing his hair. But he's a billionaire--he can't get someone to do a better job of styling what hair he has left? His haircuts are laughable, as is the hair dye. If he weren't in denial about aging, he ditch the dye, and start playing Beatles Monopoly with some women his own age. (No, that's not cutesy sexual innuendo--sorry to disappoint. He actually owns the game. Check out the link in the article.) There's a lot to be said for maturely and graciously accepting the fact that life is a series of stages. And chasing after the young gals, bopping out your own baby when you're already a grandfather, and pouring on the hair dye every couple of weeks isn't aging gracefully. Men who act that way are objects of ridicule, and for good reason. Actually, that "fatso" photographer had it right. They ARE old and pathetic. You certainly wouldn't know he wasn't a hunka hunka burning love from some of the McCartney mailing lists. Some people still look at him the same way they did in '64. Seriously.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Frankie Crisp on Sept 6, 2008 20:22:52 GMT -5
Too right. Off with McCartney's head. The freakin' nerve of the guy aging like that. His haircut is all wrong. The dye isn't right. He's got man boobs. Oh, the humanity. If only he'd take his cue from Keith Richards and age gracefully.
|
|
|
Post by gottafeelin on Sept 6, 2008 20:38:02 GMT -5
Actually, that "fatso" photographer had it right. They ARE old and pathetic. Finally a topic I can get excited about! I wonder if that fatso photographer is related to that guy that's on all those old Beatles newsreels shouting through tears, "We didn't even get to see them, some kind of lousy police protection!" I always feel very embarrassed for that guy.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Sept 6, 2008 21:00:52 GMT -5
Actually, that "fatso" photographer had it right. They ARE old and pathetic. Finally a topic I can get excited about! I wonder if that fatso photographer is related to that guy that's on all those old Beatles newsreels shouting through tears, "We didn't even get to see them, some kind of lousy police protection!" I always feel very embarrassed for that guy. LOL! That was hilarious. Steve M. needs to find that guy.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Sept 7, 2008 4:48:13 GMT -5
Remember this illustration?
|
|