> So now you are talking about things besides get back? > And an article from the times? I don’t know what article you are talking about, it’s not the subject

> So now you are talking about things besides get back? > And an article from the times? I don’t know what article you are talking about, it’s not the subject of this thread. It's linked directly above my first comment on this thread and was in part what I was responding to. It's not unreasonable to expect you to have read the parent comment to a comment you're responding to, even if you didn't read the article. That's on you for responding without the proper context, though. > The hypothetical you insert isn’t whether someone else was annoyed or not, but the pretext of why she was there in the first place. It’s one thing if you want to disagree. But if you are going to continuously have this discussion with me in such a dishonest fashion, I’m not going to engage. She wasn't there because she, on her own decided to be there. She was there because John asked her. You refuse to acknowledge this and repeatedly try and contextualize it as a decision she made against anyone else, You might make a decision based on certain factors to participate in something. In this case, John Lennon asks Yoko Ono to come to the studio with him. She lacks context to make a decision off of anything else but what John says, so she agrees to go. I'm not saying that's wrong or that she is at fault for that. I am saying that it's a conscious decision on her part to remain there, of which she can be held responsible for her part in that. > And once again you completely misrepresent everything I said, I’m not at all surprised someone is annoyed by her. How could I be? The world is full of people that, quite willingly and openly, express their disdain and annoyance with Yoko. How could it be a surprise to me?? You’ve really got to be kidding me with these kinds of arguments. Yeah, this is what you said, in case you forgot: > Have you been in a band? You wouldn't be annoyed at Yoko, you'd be annoyed at John for bringing her into practice like that and insisting that she belongs... > I would not sit there seething at her, nor would I blame her. Are you saying there is something wrong with that response? No, I don't think there's anything wrong with that response. That's your prerogative. > Yet you are insisting I should be seething and angry at her I never said anyone should be seething or angry at her. Those are your words. I specifically said I would be annoyed with both John and Yoko, for different reasons. > while also insisting you are emotionally well balanced to make these kind of judgments? I never insisted that I was emotionally well balanced; you're once again putting words into my mouth. I almost don't even have to be here for this conversation because you seem to have made up a person, that isn't me, in your head to have an argument with. > Clearly you aren’t. You are angry, resentful, and spiteful. Clearly. I'm impressed how much you can extrapolate from the words you put in other people's mouths... maybe work on your reading comprehension and emotional regulation before engaging with people online. It doesn't seem like you're mentally prepared for it.