Secret co-writer of "Chelsea Hotel"?

[linda_lakeside]

there's no one left to torture

Somebody stole my line.....

However, I don't mind, as:

And maybe a little extra for Xmas gifts (or whatever)?

Everything works out in the end.

[Kjelling]

Are you guys trying to bore people to death?

[Tchocolatl]

Ln, d'you mean that you and whoever-is-supposed-to-have-co-writed-a-song are going into a collective action against LC, now?

No torture at all. For me, I stop reading the insults about me as soon as I see it is an insult. Too childish an exercice to my taste, insults. A waste of (precious) time of (precious) life. And I take for granted that people who could take insults as serious facts are not serious. And I think that the majority of people here are serious. So.

Also I would have say "there is too much wise persons here to continue to feed a troll thread". A person alone can not do a troll thread. So. That's pretty good news. Wise people are able to create an energy in which troll energy is under control. Not disapearing, but it does not spread, and the "virus" is isolated, and nobody goes into sick intercourses. That is really great to see.

Kjelling, just jump over the boring parts, like everybody does.

Linda, you make me think about it : I'll copy the links in the poetry section, some people there may win the contest.

Lz, why don't you try? You said that you were congrat. for the song you wrote.

Laurie? A few more bucks to spend in Italy? Run for it!

Ld, I know you have a certain reserve, I don't want to be pushy, but... Go girl!

[lizzytysh]

Too childish an exercice to my taste, insults.

This is good to see. You'll, henceforth, be dropping the habit, then. Very good, Tc .

As for the Poetry Contest there, I've written a max of 10 over my entire life....and that's the nearly-dreadful AllPoetry site. However, if there's money to be made, I suggest those who are interested go for it. You just never know. Actually, I kinda miss Ms. Hallmark Lady's poems. They still had a special flair, and she almost always included visuals with keyboard symbols and colours in them. Light and fun. Just like Hallmark . I still remember her dolphin one. It just caused you [well, at least me ~ I love dolphins] to feel good reading it. It was almost like seeing a dolphin in real life leap out of and then splash back into the ocean's water .

As entries and copyrights go, of course, I'd say post it here first with that copyright symbol, and then there. Just never know on that, either, right?

My humble award ["Congratulations!"] for my poem ~ not song ~ was pure fluke. PURE fluke. Trust me when I say this. PUUUUURRRRE FLUUUUUUKE. I won't be entering or submitting poems there.

Your suggesting I do is akin to my suggesting that you do; and, I don't recall your previously mentioning that you write poetry. Well, me neither .


~ Lizzy

[Tchocolatl]

I don't read your troll posts Lz. Will you one day understand this, at least, this. This said, if you are interested to know, and if you did not enterely write them to please only you, like troll posts are meant for, anyway. But maybe there is a little corner for real communication left. Who knows.

I don't want to remind you sad events, but I do remimber about you recently having wrote a piece of some sort (on another site, as per your post) for which you received congratulations (also as per your post).

As for your poetry, well, to form you, you can go read Emily Dickinson's poetry - I find it boring to death like your "wit" (troll) posts. So this is why I don't read neither one nor the others

As for mine... Ah! Ah! Thanks for the laugh.

[tomsakic]

Speaking of where Leonard is NOT mentioned, I really don't care for Nobel or for Hall of Fame, but I'm pissed off because I learned (saw it with my own eyes) that Leonard is not included in biographical reference dictionary from Oxford UP, The Oxford Companion to Twentieth-Century Poetry in English (Oxford Paperback Reference Series). I checked all reasons why he is not included. 1) It is "poetry written in English everywhere" -so he's supposed to be in it. 2) Only academically-aproven poets? But there are dozens of poets I never heard of - every single at least little important poet is i it. So he's supposed to be included even if he was bad poet, an dthat he certainly is not. 3) He's Canadian? But there are Irving Layton and others. So he's supposed to be in it.

I tried all reasons for his omittion, and only one I could think of is that they (or the editor Ian Hamilton) forgotten him, as being "popular singer". Of course I do not expect Bob Dylan in it (he ha snot published a single volume of poetry), or Patti Smith (she *did* publish poetry), but Leonard Cohen, with dozen of books, two novels, General-Governor's Award, Award of Canadian Poets' Association for one of his books...

[~greg]

Greg,

The man's name is Ron.

Indeed. I doubt if I have ever seen a truer
sentiment expressed on this Forum.

But of course it was a yourian-slip.

I was imagining that "Ron Cornelius" looks exactly like "Ronald McDonald".
"Don" for short.

~~

so anyway

And Ron got paid what would have been almost a year's
average salary in the Seventies for one chord change?
And Leonard didn't know about it?
His manager kept it all from him? No way.

YdF

Way! Way!

There's always a way, YdF.

Here's one way:

First, I don't know about that being a year's salary for Ron.


Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Skin_f ... d_Ceremony
(which, interestingly, refers this very thread as its source,)
prints the amount of the Ron settlement as "$8 500", with
a mysterious space between the 8 and the 5 (at least that's how
it appears in my browser). When I first saw that I just assumed
that they meant $80500, since that made more sense to me.

(I am aware that some people are dyslexic about ',' and '.' in numbers)


But in any case it was not so large an amount relative to Cohen's
income at the time that it should have been brought to his
attention for that reason alone. LC was doing very well financially
in those years.

In some ways too well:

LC: "My standard of living went down as my income
increased ... Now ... I find myself living in
hotel rooms, breathing bad air, and very constrained
as to movement. " - Nadel)

"Constrained as to movement",
means that his manager was indeed keeping things away from him.


Also, to repeat the obvious, once again,
LC has been proven to be perfectly capable of being
utterly oblivious as to the comings and goings
of much larger sums of money than that.

In any case it's an odd and pathological musician
that occupies his mind with the details of the salaries
and pay-offs of his backing band members.

LC isn't even a musician, primarily.
He is a poet, who happens to perform some of his work to the
accompaniment of music. And his mind in those years had many
other things to be imagining.

He never liked the business side of things.
He always entrusted that to others.
~

Now I recall having this difference of opinion with you before, YdF.

It's called, in linguistics, the "descriptive" vs "proscriptive"
raging- although dead -controversy.

The proscriptive side says, religiously, that
"a preposition is a poor word to end a sentence with."

Whereas the descriptive side observes, scientifically,
that it happens all the time, and passes no judgment.

Previously I had simply observed that many artists do find
the business side of things to be extremely distasteful,
and that they try to pay as little attention to it as possible.

And I also observed that criticism, such as yours, about that,
was really implicitly complaining and bragging and moralizing
on your part.

Complaining that life has been tough for you.

But bragging that nevertheless you have yourself dealt with it
in some mature and responsible manner which (-moralizing -)
is what you expect of every one else, or they deserve whatever
happens to them.

And I presumed that you yourself had made a living as an artist
at some time and enjoyed, or at least had no problem with,
the business end.

And I asked you (implicitly)
"Perhaps you do handle your own finances exceedingly well."

And you answered:
"Yes. Would you like to join my pyramid?".

Everything's a joke with you, YdF.

But then again I wouldn't read your posts otherwise,
since the morally-self-assured side of them makes my skin crawl.

As an aside I would also like to say now that the amount of posturing
that occurs on this Forum is absolutely incredible.

I have always, often mistakenly, tended to regard this kind of thing as
people's attempt at humor and role-playing. And some of them
mean it that way. And sometimes it's funny and sometimes
it's not. But they're the ones I like.

There are however others here who are authentically delusional.
They have no insight at all into what motivates them.

Which is, quite simply, that they are growing old.
And lonely. And are raging against the dying of their
little bit of a crack of light.

Which would be fine, except that without a little self-awareness
their rage comes off as a regression into adolescent posturing.

And it's odd to me that this is a Leonard Cohen Forum,
because it means they have absorbed absolutely nothing
of what Cohen worked for- his whole life to express.

Which I can not summarize. But a sentence from Nadel
is suggestive of it:

There is little of the inauthentic in this writing,
although one must always guard against the con, as
Cohen reminded a Maclean's journalist in 1972, adding
that "There's no story so fantastic that I cannot
imagine my self the hero. And there's no story so
evil that I cannot imagine myself the villain."

Self-awareness!
Is where it's at,
Man.

~~

Now again, I don't think LC is a saint.

For that matter I don't even think he's even
a very nice person all the time.

However, the one hypothesis I simply can not buy
is that LC himself tacked on the '#2'
- just in order to screw Ronald MacDonald out of his rights.

Or even that it was someone in CBS - not LC
- who tacked on the '#2' - in order to screw Ron.

Because LC would certainly have asked about that.
And if he'd been told about that, --if he'd been told
that that was the reason they changed the title on him,
--I just don't think he would have gone along with it.

Pride, too, is a baser motive.

And I think LC would have been too proud to go along with it.


So I don't think that was the case.

I do not consider it inconceivable.

But I just don't think it's the case.



Because this is what I think is the case:

LC tacked on the '#2' himself, for internal artistic reasons.

Which may have helped CBS screw Ron out of his rights.
But that wasn't LC's intention.
And I don't think he was aware until now that
anyone ever claimed it had that effect in the U.S.


And now here is the reason I think LC added the '#2' himself.

Ron claims that he co-wrote "Chelsea Hotel" (#1)
by improving on some earlier version,
and that #2 is identical to #1.

The reason it has a No. 2 behind it is that he tried to cheat me
out of my share by recopyrighting it that way (he changed nothing)
– it was just "Chelsea Hotel "

Unless we somehow get to hear the pre-#1 version,
which is impossible, we will never, -ever ever,
-be able judge the facts of this case completely
objectively.

All we can do now is to think hard about what
difference there actually is between #1 and #2,
and decide for ourselves if it warranted a name change.
Because if we can't, honestly, see a sufficient difference,
then Ron's claim becomes plausible.

However the fact is that very many people do see
a very big difference between #1 and #2.

Devlin put it this way:

Whereas the much longer original song meanders and wallows,
'#2' is concise. It has a simple acoustic broken-chord accompaniment,
with a subtle hint of trombone on the chorus, and a sombre but tender
vocal line.

To my way of thinking, a change from meandering and wallowing,
to concise, is a very great and significant change indeed.
To my way of thinking it would itself justify changing the title.

But wait - there's more!
The really biggest difference between #1 and #2 is the new last stanza:

I don't mean to suggest that I loved you the best,
I can't keep track of each fallen robin.
I remember you well in the Chelsea Hotel,
that's all, I don't even think of you that often.

Ron would say that that's just an arbitrary stanza
picked at random in order to make a trivial variation
intended solely to break off the screw that the "#2"
was screwing him with.

But anyone who sees it that way is tone-deaf in regards to poetry.

Moreover, anyone who reads that stanza
as a simple case of LC bragging about what a hard a dude
he is in regards to other people's lives,
is simply ignorant of the context of Cohen's
life and work at the time.


"I can't keep track of each fallen robin"
- is not a brag.
It is a prayer for strength.

It is to be associated with "Night Comes On"

And the night came on
It was very calm
I wanted the night to go on and on
But she said, Go back to the World

(
it also reminds me, somehow, of this:

RHETT: Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.
...
SCARLETT: Tara! Home.
I'll go home. And I'll think of some way to get him back.
After all, tomorrow is another day!

)


"Chelsea Hotel (#1)" was pure indulgence in the
paradoxical pleasures of melancholia.

It was "meandering and wallowing" in self-pity.

Here are the relevant events:
Janis Joplin died in 1970.

Daphne Richardson committed suicide in 1973.

But then:
Lorca Sarah was born, in 1974.

And in 1974 "Chelsea Hotel"
became "Chelsea Hotel #2".


Anyone who can't see through the stanza now
- has no business listening to Cohen.

The Energy of Slaves registers a dual loss: of art
and of love, which often disappear together, as in
"The Progress of My Style". Such loss can only be
recovered by the facing poems, which frequently
accompany and/or revise the original work and possibly
bridge or destroy the gap between art and desire

I don't know what Nadel meant by "the gap",
but my point is that LC's work of the time
- which included "Energy of Slaves" and "Chelsea Hotel",
- involved a kind of fetish of "facing poems"
- poems that commented on other (facing) poems.

And this is exactly the context in which
"Chelsea Hotel" became "Chelsea Hotel #2".

Many people have noticed that "Chelsea Hotel #2"
expresses a very different - more mature - attitude
than "Chelsea Hotel". What I'm saying now is that
I think that Cohen very likely considered at some
point including both "Chelsea Hotel #1" and
"Chelsea Hotel #2" - on facing pages. But then
decided that the "#2" was sufficient a signal
that this was a comment song on an implicit '#1' song.
The exact revision being, quite obviously, the last stanza

Anyone can guess, without having to see it written out,
that "Chelsea Hotel #1" must have differed from
#2 by not containing that stanza.

In brief, it is my guess that "Chelsea Hotel #2"
was named for internal artistic reasons.

Not to screw Ron Cornelius.

~~~

ps:


If anyone here has any question as to which is the
more essential aspect of this song,
the lyrics or the music,

listen to this snippet that I mentioned before
http://relay.twoshakesofalambstail.com/solo.mp3

It's about 40 seconds long.
Pay close attention to the last 5 sec.

At what point do you recognize the song?

[tomsakic]

Excellent analysis, ~greg, I really must admit I always enjoy your way of putting the things out. - Btw, Chelsea Hotel dispute - according to History of the page - was added by our Kjelling here (I can add at least one correction - REMASTERED CD was NEVER released, only nice price CD from Sony - only Leonard's remastered CD is The Essential! None of the studil albums is not available in remastered CDs.)

[lizzytysh]

Tchoc ~ This posting will be my last in response to you, Laurie, or Linda on this thread, as Greg and Tom have returned to value land here, and I want to read what Greg has written ~ have already read Tom's.

You misinterpreted my comment re: my postings. The writing doesn't come about as result of seeking to improve. However, since I'm responding, anyway, I do it from that perspective ~ back a way from the issue at hand, and look at it through a different lens, and respond that way. I've always enjoyed reductio ad absurdum ~ and I might as well respond in a way pleasing to me, as long as I'm doing it, right? [Rhetorical question.] I knew my "Skilled" response would be a pin prick ; but it seemed quite in order, after all the buddy-inflation bragging. Sure enough ~ first sentence you wrote . For it only to have been a lottery ticket . I wonder how, though, if you're not reading, how you can 'assess' "boring" . Do you have an agent who handles all that for you and keeps you informed, whilst you, yourself, just keep turning up [I won't say "like a bad penny," as it would be interpreted as being across-the-board, though in these circumstances, I surely could apply the phrase]. Even so, skill can be simply a matter of responding and making one's point, without resorting to profanity, as some are wont to do. It can be dripping sarcasm. It can be consistent absurdity. It can also be humour. It can be a number of things.

I wonder, even more, if you're not reading them, then of what concern are they to you; and why you keep Trolling. In reality, though you love to point fingers [and I have no idea why it is that Laurie swallows your pointing at/to her every time that something actually applies to you both, but that's between you and her]. I was just going along, engaged in the topic of this thread, and on page 3, Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:22 pm, here you come ~ enter the thread, and carry on your petty, personal-attack style commentary toward me, mixed in with the semblance of a response of your own, regarding the topic. That's where your Trolling started on this thread. I could point to other junctures on other threads.

As for communication with you [Laurie, too], I keep seeing a glimmer of hope from time to time; but it's looking doubtful, as you still want to drudge on, returning to insults and insisting I'm irrelevant to you, when obviously I'm not. Perhaps, it's an obsession and you have a compulsion. That's okay. But, that's what therapists get paid for. As for communication with others, for the most part, I do quite well ~ not sure where you got your clouded vision on that.

As for something written on another site, I have no clue what you're referring to. The only other sites [two] I can think of relate/d to the death of my two, women friends. I haven't written on either for a very long time. The one is closed. So, it's possible you misinterpreted something I said. It wouldn't be the first time .

As for my poetry or lack of it, I never indicated an interest in learning it, nor did I ever ask you where I should go, what I should do in that regard [write poetry, enter contests, read poetry, learn how to write poetry], so you're being too directive again. You seem to love telling people what they should do. Perhaps, you and Laurie could open a "T&L Fix-It Shop." Remember, though, that only quality repairs will keep you in business.

I find it boring to death like your "wit" (troll) posts. So this is why I don't read neither one nor the others.

Textbook-classic confession of a Troll.

Stop trolling me, Tchocolatl.

I'm returning now to read Greg's post on the topic of this thread.


~ Lizzy

[lizzytysh]

Hi Greg ~

Thanks so much for this commentary and analysis. You've made a considerable number of good points.

On this portion, your interpretation of:

and very constrained
as to movement. " - Nadel)

is:

"Constrained as to movement",
means that his manager was indeed keeping things away from him.

You may be right on that. I had always understood it to mean that he had simply lost his mobility and freedom, as he was, at that point, always due somewhere, in particular, by a specific time, to perform. As though he had gone from feeling like a free spirit [6 months on Hydra ~ 6 months on reconaissance 'in the world,' gathering information and experiences, for further writing] to feeling like a trained seal. However, I hadn't looked at it simply as his now being 'managed' by someone who might be/was keeping things from him.

***************

In any case it's an odd and pathological musician
that occupies his mind with the details of the salaries
and pay-offs of his backing band members.

I experienced something 'akin' to this once. Musicians, and most certainly 'poets', clearly have different focuses and priorities. When I lived in the Keys, my favourite 'local' group was called the Survivors. They were great guys and wonderful musicians. Their style was a jazz-blues-reggae-salsa blend and they were excellent in the music and their singing. They played a mix of covers and their own creations. They played at a small and funky, open-windowed and -doored restaurant/club called Mangrove Mamas on Sugarloaf Key; in various clubs in Key West; in Bar Harbor, Maine [where they stayed, at will, in homes they owned there; and at various places enroute along the way, as they traveled back and forth, from winter to summer].

I can't even remember how it came about, but I somehow ended up in an informal position with them of unofficial 'agent,' seeking a locale in the Virgin Islands for them to play, for the simple reason that they wanted to vacation there and bring in some income while they did. I contacted all the various agencies necessary for that to happen, contacted the various clubs, and made the various arrangements. Located the seemingly best place for everyone [including me, per their suggestion ~ my 'reward,' as I wasn't interested in money] to say [separate huts on stilts, connected by above-ground walkways ~ very nice, very islandy, as we all wanted]. Arranged for a photographer to take promo photos, and scoured Key West for the most photographic backdrops for them. Sent packets to the various clubs and communicated with the managers. Secured dates for their choosing. Payment for their services, contractual agreements for the hours, sets, and breaks in between they were to agree to, if interested. Negotiations on those matters. Determined plane fares and schedules to align with them. Everything was done ~ except construction of crates for their equipment. That was the only thing they had to do. Of course, in retrospect, I wish I'd have arranged for that ~ I couldn't do it, and it seemed such a ridiculous waste of money to farm it out, that I dug my heels in, and said, "When you guys get this done, I'll complete the rest of the necessary arrangements." They were [granted] involved with wives, children, girlfriends, other issues of life, so my having to track them down, as needed, was teeth-gritting but at least understandable to me. They were the, what I call, 'stereotypical' musicians ~ focused on their music, their practice sessions, their next play-date, their 'everything else,' other than their 'business matters.' All of this never came to fruition because they could never seem to get those crates built, and I finally said "Forget it, guys." Do I regret that final stand? You bet, I do. Oh, well. That's life.

Can I understand how Leonard did not focus on the business matters assigned to others? You bet I can. Been there, done that, seen it up close and personal.

*******************************

In reading your posting through, I've realized that #2 is the one that has that verse, that I've somehow associated with the original. With Leonard's improvising, adding and subtracting various lines and verses in different performances and recordings, I never committed to memory what goes with what. However, the verse is certainly more significant than a chord change, or many chord changes.

*********************************

Thank you for supplying the dates of deaths, birth, and writing of the song, as well as the other, relative-to-this issue, related songs.
For one thing, I had always associated "fallen robins" primarily with sexual encounters. Fallen robins ~ as you've lined them up in this sequence of events, is pretty clearly, and painfully, literal loss of lives of beautiful 'birds.' Yet, by 1974, his focus and priorities had changed and diverted to life vs. death. The birth of a child has changed many a man's life, in totally-unexpected-to-them ways. I've sometimes been amazed by the glowing testimonies of men I've known, as they've contrasted how life was before, as to how everything in their life is now. It's a beautiful transition.

These are the most outstanding things that struck me in your much-appreciated posting.

I also appreciate, along with Tom [and, I'm confident, others], the way you bring your own kind of clarity when you address something.


Love,
Lizzy

[Young dr. Freud]

Hello Greg,

At the risk of making your skin crawl,

$8,500.00 was a lot of money in the Seventies. For anybody...let alone a musician. For sake of the argument lets pretend his manager didn't tell him about the legal thing. That Leonard was too busy being creative to realize he was paying off his band leader of six years. Someone must have told him that Ron was trash-talking. A friend. Another band member. Surely Ron must have called up Leonard and said, "Why are you trying to screw me out of the credit." It's asking too much to believe Leonard was totally in the dark about this.

But in any case it was not so large an amount relative to Cohen's
income at the time that it should have been brought to his
attention for that reason alone. LC was doing very well financially
in those years.

In some ways too well:
Quote:

LC: "My standard of living went down as my income
increased ... Now ... I find myself living in
hotel rooms, breathing bad air, and very constrained
as to movement. " - Nadel)



"Constrained as to movement",
means that his manager was indeed keeping things away from him.

His manager was keeping things (such as Ron's lawsuit) away from him therefore Leonard can't move around the way he used to do? Sorry, but that's illogical.

YdF

P.S. I think you are being a little bit disingenuous in selectively quoting from my previous post on another thread. You should provide a link to the whole post so that everyone can enjoy it's robust fullness and flavor.

[LaurieAK]

SL~

Intellectually, I can see why other folks tell me I should just feel sorry for you. I mean, all the clues are there and add up one pathetic soul, who has to rule over a board at any cost to feel good about herself. It is sad. The thing that stops me from being completely empathetic to your plight is that you're so f*cking mean.

Glad to read you have posted your last words on the subject.

This here post IS a fitting end to this particular discussion.

regards,
Laurie

The end.

[lizzytysh]

I didn't have in mind cheap shots when I said that, Laurie.

Mmmmm....not quite a fitting end, since I'm not a pathetic soul. My soul is lovely, in fact. This I know, for I'm the one who lives with it and it with me.

I've never claimed to be "intellectual," although those brain tests have consistently shown me to be virtually 'equal' between intellectual and emotional [51/49, etc.], so I'm content with the mix. I'm eccentric, as well, and for that, I am glad, as well. Nonetheless, regarding "intellectual," and were there a choice, I'd choose heart any day. It's not perfect, but it's warm and it's true; and, for now, that is fine.

Regarding my being "f*cking mean," in reality, I'm quite the contrary; but, I guess you've managed to overlook your own, particular brand of 'kindness' when you say that. If you need a visual reminder, though, you can easily refer to your most recent posting here . What you observed was the height of my intolerance...in 'controlled' fashion, i.e. without becoming profane...for the inane, relentless, and still continuing pattern of attack, and undermining, of who I am as a person.

"Rule over a board" ~ no, I don't do that. I actively participate. I'm not interested in who your "other folks" are, as I have my own set of friends here, with whom I'm extremely content and, in fact, happy. They are all very caring and lovely people. I feel good about myself for a wide variety of reasons. I've never been one to put all my eggs in one basket, as much as you may delude yourself into thinking that your scenario is real.

Go ahead and "feel sorry" for me. It won't be the first misappropriated emotional reaction/response to come my direction, and it won't be the last.

Please don't [ever] attempt being "empathetic" toward me, as empathy is a precious commodity, and not to be wasted in foolish ways by foolish people. I don't need it from you, and I seriously doubt your ability to give it.

My "plight" is the same as everyone else's ~ my life; the same as their life is theirs.

You should not misuse such a well-intentioned word as "regards."

September 2, and 3, 2005 must have been "red-letter" days for you, Laurie. Three months ago is when this, virtually-ongoing onslaught began. I wonder why . [Another rhetorical posing of a question, on "I wonder why."] There I was, minding my own business in the "Sadness and Joy in the News" thread, documenting the approach of Hurricane Katrina, a very serious, real-life event, as it was unfolding. I was in a thread, which I had initiated, for that very purpose of recording various events, in a single location of the "News" section [where many things were being placed at that time]; fearing the worst for New Orleans and the Gulf Coast; and expressing some feelings to that effect ~ a 'worst' that tragically and sadly appears to have happened. I'm guessing you may have enough 'evidence' now, to officially change your third-person, psycho-babble 'diagnosis'/pronouncement [regarding the self-flagellation you deemed I was doing, at the same time you were terming it "uber-compassion"], that, "You revel in these things. You are at your happiest when most despondent." Your stated attitude about the Katrina horror was, "Shit happens."

I trust you will no longer be trolling me, Laurie.


~ Elizabeth/Lizzy

"Do what you feel in your heart to be right, for you'll be criticized anyway. You'll be damned if you do, and damned if you don't." - Eleanor Roosevelt
This is true ~ so, I do .

[Tchocolatl]

Lz wrote

Tchoc ~ This posting will be my last in response to you,

Lz I DO NOT READ YOUR INSULTS.

Do I have to write it bigger? OK?

I DO NOT READ YOU INSULTS. SO YOU ARE LOSING YOUR TIME INSULTING ME. I HOPE IT IS VERY CLEAR THIS TIME. PLEASE WHEN YOU ARE POSTING A REPLY TO ME, DO IT WITH RESPECT (maybe you can learn in the process what is the respect you should have for yourself, by the way) AND I WILL READ AND ANSWER YOU, OTHERWISE, I ASK YOU TO FORGET ME.

No people, I'm not angry or annoyed. I just have fate that some day she will get off my back.

[Tchocolatl]

YdF you are a very peculiar fan. Something like the Coyote being fan of the Road Runner.