Re: Beatle Songs that prolly were writtin by the Yoke??

On Nov 18, 8:57=A0pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Fattush <fattuc...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Nov 17, 6:03 pm, "RichL" <rpleav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> BlackMonk <BlackM...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> "RichL" <rpleav...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>news:fqmdnXyXdJSa3L3UnZ2dnUVZ_r_inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> marcus <marcus...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >>>>> So, why did Norman invent a rumor, and mention others based on
> >>>>> little more than gossip?
>
> >>>>> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> >>>>> And also hoping that folks who read it, will buy into it all as
> >>>>> gospel.
>
> >>>> <applause!>
>
> >>>> Does any other musical group in history attract such a pathetic
> >>>> coterie of muckrakers? Maybe Elvis, I'm not sure. I tend to stay
> >>>> away from the genre.
>
> >>> Norman is hardly a muckracker. Both of you are criticizing a book
> >>> you haven't read. Given Norman's reputation, I'm more inclined to
> >>> think that articles about the book play up the most sensational
> >>> parts to sell papaer.
>
> >> Based on the several posts that Usurper Tom has written explicitly
> >> showing some of Norman's writing, I have to say that I believe that
> >> my original *****sment was accurate. Maybe "muckraker" is the wrong
> >> term. "Gutter journalism" seems to me to fit the bill.- Hide quoted
> >> text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't agree that these samples of Philips' writings show gutter
> > journalism. =A0They do show that the man is opinionated and that some
o=
f
> > his opinions are not flattering.
>
> > The tone of his Lennon bio is not gutter journalism at all. Most of it
> > is quite mundane. =A0It is little different than the Spitz book or
most
> > other Beatles bios.
>
> All of which goes to show how foreign this particular niche of writing
> is to me. =A0It's certainly much different from the majority of
historica=
l
> writing. =A0There, one has to at least *pretend* to be objective.-


I'm glad to see that you realize that even historical writing
"pretends" to be objective.  It is human nature for people to have a
certain point of view or certain pre conceived notions.  Any author
will interpret and historical events a certain way.  One reader may
read that book and say it is objective; another may say it is biased.