Re: Joe Jackson?? (no Who content)

[Litgo@aol.com]

DC, re:

>This remains to be seen;  show me one example where I supposedly 'misquoted'
>anyone and I will find you an honest man.  I may be projecting opinions but
>they have some backing as opposed to the lecture from you above.  Being
>sardonic as opposed to sarcastic is less caustic and easier for you to
>understand - enjoy your candy pop my friend.  Oh by the way, the double
>negative you used in the sermon above is poor english - did you get this
>from a Joe Jackson song?
>
>DC

For one, me. Unfortunately, I've deleted such examples, including one in
which someone siad, "I never said that..." or something to that effect. 

Oh, by the way, you forgot some punctuation there, sir. Who declared emails
or newsgroups to be champions of correct grammatical usage?  And, I assure
you, there is neither sarcasm nor a double negative in the previous post.

As far as musical tastes are concerned, it's your prerogative to listen to
whatever your heart (ear) desires, as it is mine. If everyone listened to the
same thing, we'd all be c&w fans. Listening only to the Who is not a
prerequisite to joining this group, or is liking all the Who's material. Some
like pre-Tommy only; others think pre-Tommy is 'candy pop' so to speak. And
many dislike any post-Moon material. The variety of musical tastes and the
discussions it fosters is what makes this forum compelling. However, if you
insist on proselytizing, and exercising your banality, as opposed to offering
your own opinions and contributing to discussions, please take your routine
elsewhere.

Sincerely, and tired of airing dirty laundry,

Litgo