Paul McCartney's divorce


Recommended Posts

Gotta let off some steam here as I haven't ranted in a bit.

Paul McCartney got fleeced! It looks like Heather is taking him to the cleaners for $100,000,000 or so. She doesn't deserve a dime of his money as they were only married four years. What a bitch! How could he ever marry such a phony in the first place. Sometimes I don't understand men at all. I met Heather Mills briefly a few years ago at a fashion show and she was as shallow as could be. She was obviously after his money and it was total entrapment. I got a really bad feeling about her. But alas, Paul was nowhere to be found so I could not warn him. I know she does a lot of charity work, but it is fake PR of the corporate social responsibility sort to make people think she is a good person, but I could see right through her.

I'm glad she fell on her ass! The peg-legged golddigger!

hissssssssssssssssssssss

Kat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta let off some steam here as I haven't ranted in a bit.

Paul McCartney got fleeced! It looks like Heather is taking him to the cleaners for $100,000,000 or so. She doesn't deserve a dime of his money as they were only married four years. What a bitch! How could he ever marry such a phony in the first place. Sometimes I don't understand men at all. I met Heather Mills briefly a few years ago at a fashion show and she was as shallow as could be. She was obviously after his money and it was total entrapment. I got a really bad feeling about her. But alas, Paul was nowhere to be found so I could not warn him. I know she does a lot of charity work, but it is fake PR of the corporate social responsibility sort to make people think she is a good person, but I could see right through her.

I'm glad she fell on her ass! The peg-legged golddigger!

hissssssssssssssssssssss

Kat

Let's see you have no knowledge of the facts of the case. You have heard not one word of sworn testimony. You have perused not one single document. Yet, you are able to make a conclusion. May I know which mystical church you preach at? I'm sorry, you are the Count Korzybski lady. Let me restate the last message in a format you can assimilate:

If, as he brilliantly stated, "The 'map' is not the 'territory'", how did you "read" an "electronic" semantic map "framed" by a mass media outlet, mix it with some mystical perception that you gleaned from a "fashion" "show"

and rationally conclude that she is a "bitch"? Whelp me out here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta let off some steam here as I haven't ranted in a bit. Paul McCartney got fleeced! It looks like Heather is taking him to the cleaners for $100,000,000 or so. She doesn't deserve a dime of his money as they were only married four years. What a bitch! How could he ever marry such a phony in the first place. Sometimes I don't understand men at all. I met Heather Mills briefly a few years ago at a fashion show and she was as shallow as could be. She was obviously after his money and it was total entrapment. I got a really bad feeling about her. But alas, Paul was nowhere to be found so I could not warn him. I know she does a lot of charity work, but it is fake PR of the corporate social responsibility sort to make people think she is a good person, but I could see right through her.

Kat, I share your outrage at someone so egregiously and monumentally looting another human being. But it is not just men who are foolish, and not just women who are shallow. Either sex can be either or both.

In particular, I used to say "a fool and his money are soon parted." But after knowing my ex-wife for several decades, I have come to the realization that it is a gender-neutral truism.

That said, I don't think Heather Mills is a fool, so she will probably manage her take from this divorce for decades to come.

As for Paul McCartney, if the money means anything to him, he completely blew it in not getting a pre-nup, and he deserves no sympathy. If the money means nothing to him -- after all the decades of work and creativity that went into accumulating it -- then he needs no sympathy.

In either case, I would suggest letting them continue their own specific processes of soul-rot that they are engaged in, and find something else to rant about.

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites
Adam,

This is a section for ranting. It don't have to make sense.

Kitten is an ardent Beatles fan and has been one since childhood, so her familiarity is a bit deeper than appears. I have learned that some hissings are best left to cats...

(I live with her and I don't mess with her Beatles.)

:)

Michael

Ahh. Removing foot from my rhetorical mouth. Kitten = the C-Span ARI link/my agreement with her great pickup and our discussions. Hmmm. Now I understand. Well then extend my apology to you to her.

Well you should meet my lady. Midwife in the "Off The Map" [<Great little movie] American mennonite community. Lived in Bolivia for 5 years as a missionary mid-wife/milk farm/no electricity and as expert on herboligy as anyone I've ever met. Hates politics. We minimalist backpack in the Shenandoah Mountains. Geez, I am getting too old for this revolutionary "stuff". Nah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kat,

I just recently heard that Paul McCartney is worth about 1.6 billion dollars. I've not confirmed this figure, but I'd feel safe in saying that 100 million dollars is pocket change for him. So even if his ex wife is every bit the bitch you think she is, Sir Paul is not going to be suffering any financial distress as a result of whatever settlement he ends up having to pay.

By the way, I love the Beatles as much as you do. Greatest rock band ever!

Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that he should have had a prenup. Were I in his shoes, I'd certainly insist on one!!

I have heard/read suggestions that perhaps he fell for Heather because she resembled the deceased Linda McCartney, his previous (first?) wife.

Dayam, trophy wives can sure be expensive!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that he should have had a prenup. Were I in his shoes, I'd certainly insist on one!!

I have heard/read suggestions that perhaps he fell for Heather because she resembled the deceased Linda McCartney, his previous (first?) wife.

Dayam, trophy wives can sure be expensive!

Hence, one of my favorite Rand quotes that has gotten instant attention for almost 50 years. It is a great door opener to advance a discussion of her ideas.

"Show me what a man finds sexually attractive[<maybe off on that word - might be desirable] and I will tell you his philosophy of life."

Say that and be patient and you can actually see the person go through actual thought and one of the most beautiful sight for a teacher or persuader to see - awareness of a truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that he should have had a prenup. Were I in his shoes, I'd certainly insist on one!!

I have heard/read suggestions that perhaps he fell for Heather because she resembled the deceased Linda McCartney, his previous (first?) wife.

Dayam, trophy wives can sure be expensive!

Hence, one of my favorite Rand quotes that has gotten instant attention for almost 50 years. It is a great door opener to advance a discussion of her ideas.

"Show me what a man finds sexually attractive[<maybe off on that word - might be desirable] and I will tell you his philosophy of life."

Say that and be patient and you can actually see the person go through actual thought and one of the most beautiful sight for a teacher or persuader to see - awareness of a truth.

She had a remarkable ability to extrapolate from little or nothing, which I do not admire. This doesn't mean she solved the "problem" of induction. It means she made an overstatement to illustrate her dubious point.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

The "problem of induction" is that there is no real problem. It is an attempt to think with half a mind. Sort of like instructions on how a one-legged man can win an ass-kicking contest at a country dance.

Rand simply saw through it an dismissed it. Frankly, I wish she had been even more dismissive.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brant,

The "problem of induction" is that there is no real problem. It is an attempt to think with half a mind. Sort of like instructions on how a one-legged man can win an ass-kicking contest at a country dance.

Rand simply saw through it an dismissed it. Frankly, I wish she had been even more dismissive.

Michael,

The implication of this not uncommon type of statement from her is that she had, contrary to her official position.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

I edited my statement to be more clear. It should now read as follows:

The "problem of induction" is that there is no real problem. In simple language, it is like saying "you can't drive a car without a car" or to be more on point, you can't deduce anything with premises that do not follow pre-established rules. An obscure kind of language was used to make it sound like something other than being master of the obvious.

But some philosophers and thinkers have blown this out of shape with more obscure kind of language to try to invalidate induction itself and turn THE PROBLEM into an attempt to think with half a mind. Their writing is sort of like instructions on how a one-legged man can win an ass-kicking contest at a country dance.

Rand simply saw through all this and dismissed it. Frankly, I wish she had been even more dismissive.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that he should have had a prenup. Were I in his shoes, I'd certainly insist on one!!

I have heard/read suggestions that perhaps he fell for Heather because she resembled the deceased Linda McCartney, his previous (first?) wife.

Dayam, trophy wives can sure be expensive!

Hence, one of my favorite Rand quotes that has gotten instant attention for almost 50 years. It is a great door opener to advance a discussion of her ideas.

"Show me what a man finds sexually attractive[<maybe off on that word - might be desirable] and I will tell you his philosophy of life."

Say that and be patient and you can actually see the person go through actual thought and one of the most beautiful sight for a teacher or persuader to see - awareness of a truth.

She had a remarkable ability to extrapolate from little or nothing, which I do not admire. This doesn't mean she solved the "problem" of induction. It means she made an overstatement to illustrate her dubious point.

--Brant

How so? Secondly, she was a human being who had flaws and a "philosopher" whose philosophy is not perfect in all the branches of the discipline. So let's psychologically spank her and glean the immensely revolutionary concepts that we all have learned. Jack Nicholson > "I suggest you just say thank you and move along!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotta let off some steam here as I haven't ranted in a bit.

Paul McCartney got fleeced! It looks like Heather is taking him to the cleaners for $100,000,000 or so. She doesn't deserve a dime of his money as they were only married four years. What a bitch! How could he ever marry such a phony in the first place. Sometimes I don't understand men at all. I met Heather Mills briefly a few years ago at a fashion show and she was as shallow as could be. She was obviously after his money and it was total entrapment. I got a really bad feeling about her. But alas, Paul was nowhere to be found so I could not warn him. I know she does a lot of charity work, but it is fake PR of the corporate social responsibility sort to make people think she is a good person, but I could see right through her.

I'm glad she fell on her ass! The peg-legged golddigger!

hissssssssssssssssssssss

Kat

Let's see you have no knowledge of the facts of the case. You have heard not one word of sworn testimony. You have perused not one single document. Yet, you are able to make a conclusion. May I know which mystical church you preach at? I'm sorry, you are the Count Korzybski lady. Let me restate the last message in a format you can assimilate:

If, as he brilliantly stated, "The 'map' is not the 'territory'", how did you "read" an "electronic" semantic map "framed" by a mass media outlet, mix it with some mystical perception that you gleaned from a "fashion" "show"

and rationally conclude that she is a "bitch"? Whelp me out here?

Let's analyze this, briefly. What is the basis of your knowledge that Kat has "no knowledge of the facts of the case?" You seem to speak with great authority about what she does NOT know. Or are you just ASSUMING that she has knowledge? Please clarify.

And please provide the address of the mystical church where you pontificate...

Alfonso

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kat:

That one-legged gold digger ended up with a hundred mil? Let's just hope she takes his cash and then she goes back to where she came from and the public never hears from her again.

I never had the dubious pleasure of making her acquaintance, but I got the feeling she was trouble a long time ago. He should have listened to his kids, who could barely tolerate her, from what I've read.

If he ever decides to take a third trip down the aisle, I hope he gets a pre-nup. Too bad Jane Asher is no longer available.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Show me what a man finds sexually attractive[<maybe off on that word - might be desirable] and I will tell you his philosophy of life."

Say that and be patient and you can actually see the person go through actual thought and one of the most beautiful sight for a teacher or persuader to see - awareness of a truth.

I must respectfully disagree with this to some extent; I think it is over-rated. I think that Rand, like a lot of people, may have been prone to assuming that a physically good-looking person was also a good person inside.

I've seen some good-looking women get away with a lot of bad behavior (especially if they were tiny and good at playing stupid or helpless); and I'm pretty damned sure that had they been more ordinary-looking, they'd have been called on their bad behavior a LOT sooner.

Edited by Pam Maltzman
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Rand, like a lot of people, may have been prone to assuming that a physically good-looking person was also a good person inside.

Pam,

Rand definitely did this, and not just in her novels.

In some of her later essays, Rand is quite explicit in making the equation. For instance, in her newsletter article about the Watergate hearings, she seemed confident that the way a witness looked on TV would clue the viewers in as to whether he was telling the truth. And in her final Ford Hall Forum speech she made a nasty crack about the physical appearance of some leading advocates of creationism.

There was one exception, though. Chorus girls--the great Randian bugaboo.

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always found McCartney a bit too smug and self-absorbed, particularly given the rather substandard quality of his music in the last 20 years (of course, I don't know the guy). But, like Kanye West said in Golddigger:

If you ain't no punk holla' we want pre-nup

WE WANT PRE-NUP!, yeah

It's something that you need to have

'Cause when she leave yo' ass she gon' leave with half

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Show me what a man finds sexually attractive[<maybe off on that word - might be desirable] and I will tell you his philosophy of life."

Say that and be patient and you can actually see the person go through actual thought and one of the most beautiful sight for a teacher or persuader to see - awareness of a truth.

I must respectfully disagree with this to some extent; I think it is over-rated. I think that Rand, like a lot of people, may have been prone to assuming that a physically good-looking person was also a good person inside.

I've seen some good-looking women get away with a lot of bad behavior (especially if they were tiny and good at playing stupid or helpless); and I'm pretty damned sure that had they been more ordinary-looking, they'd have been called on their bad behavior a LOT sooner.

That is not how I interpret the quote. Frankly, and being a heretic that went through the movement debacle at NBI, basically set us back by twenty years, I understand it, through my personal choice to mean - see the values of the person.

Anyone who chooses to "go to bed" [what a PC phrase] with a person purely on looks deserves what they get. There are no "ugly" women or men, some are more beautiful than others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now