Re: This isn't a Black Crowes song!

["Mark R. Leaman" <mleaman@sccoast.net>]

>     Mark, it is difficult to convey my viewpoint when my posts never make
it
> through.

Sean:

Of course.

> I told Paul that I would apologize if I were wrong, but the fact
> remains that every reply I have made to an anti-Fang mail has not posted.

I have no idea about this, but I have a hard time believing Paul is
censoring each mail that comes through. After all, most of the time we get
a gentle warning when we go off topic...whereas if he was censoring, he'd
catch them beforehand.

> what I read in here: several people called for members of this list to
"rally"
> and team-up against Fang on Pete's site.

I haven't seen this at all. One anti-Fang note, and the question why fans
who do not cause controversy are suffering as a result of a few who
do...but this isn't a team-up or a rally call.

> Then, there appears a plethora of anti-Fang posts.

This will always happen, because he does bring out the hostility in some
and insults better than most.

> I just wanted my view to appear, and I am thankful that Pete
> Townshend doesn't censor opposing speech on his site yet.

I don't know if you were around for the reason this list began the policy
of on-topic posts, but as someone who was partly responsible for that
decision I do support it as much as I support the opposite view. After all,
there are people who don't enjoy the non-Who stuff, and even people like me
who are too busy to deal with a lot of extra stuff they aren't interested
in. I went on the PT list but only read one of the notes, because customers
needed attention...the point being there's nothing wrong with an area which
isn't as cluttered with non-relevant posts.
And there are those who hate this list, and bad-mouth it although there is
no reason to. As I said, anyone who doesn't like it can leave it and no
harm done. THAT should be all there is to it, but for some reason there are
those who hold a grudge.

>     By the way, I joined this list because I thought it had value, even
though
> its who content is less technical and really less informative.

I'm glad of that, anyway. I believe both lists are valuable, and wish I had
the time to be on both but it's not to be. I doubt I'll do much if anything
else on the PT list.

> But I'll tell
> you in no uncertain terms: if views on this list are the product of the
> listowner's orchestration, so that it is only a mouthpiece for the views
of Big
> Pauley, your list is not only a fraud, but it is worthless rag of
> propaganda.      .

I can assure you that it is not. If what you say was true, I'd agree with
you but it's not the case. It's merely a more focused list, sort of like
WhoNews is reported to be (I've never read it).

But don't worry about any conspiracy or anyone out to get Fang...he can
handle anything thrown at him, you know...



       Cheers                  ML

If you own a CD player, you need to check out our website:

http://www.generations.theshoppe.com/