Re: I am Spock!

["L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>]

> > > Somehow on this list, being at all critical of anyone in the band or 
>even anyone working for the band, e.g. Astley or Curbishley, is frowned 
>upon.
> >
> >   Actually, we pick on Pete a lot--well, sometimes Roger and John.
> >   But we hardly ever pick on the support crew.  Why do you feel that 
>would be productive?
>
>Because they probably have more control than ever we realise over who
>Pete/Rog/John see, hear from, read of, than ever we realise.

But what good will the criticism do?

We all saw Pete's response to comments on Jon Astley's work on the PT BBS.  
I gather that Pete thinks the responsibility to choose who he works with is 
his own, and not that of the fans.  Plus, his response was appropriately 
protective of his employees.  Fang tried to insist that it wasn't really 
Pete who had posted, but it was my feeling that it was, and that he was 
somewhat infuriated by the attack, which was, therefore, counterproductive.  
Pete is going to do what he wants to do, regardless of fan opinion.  One 
might suggest something, but not tell him what to do.


>Look at Bill Curbishley. He gets a cut from the Who, and from
>Page/Plant. Apart from the fact that Page/Plant means he'll never have to 
>lift a finger in his his life again, he's stopped thinking and
>working full time for the Who.
>
>This means he deserves criticism if appropriate.

Comment, I think, but not something that constitutes an attack.  Unless 
employees are doing something criminal, it remains the boss' privledge to 
evaluate his work, and an employee's status puts them in a position where it 
would be unprofessional to respond to personal criticism based on their work 
for their employer.  It's therefore pretty unfair to use them as a way to 
annoy their boss.


keets
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com