Re: Politics on the list

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@vtmednet.org>]

>From: Hanicram45@aol.com
>Subject: Re: Politics on the list
>
>Hello Paul, <snip> I would appreciate it if you would ask once 
>again that the subject matter pertain to the Who and that subscribers keep 
>their politics to themselves, including their signatures.  Regards, Ceenie.

I agree with you Ceenie, except for the following:

Signatures don't cause political rants. The uncontrollable need of some to
disagree with, agree with, argue against, or comment on said signatures
does.
*That's* the point I've been trying to make, and might I say has been proven
nicely by those "some".
I personally think signatures are fine and should be left alone as a passive
way of expressing a person's current interest.
I *really* hope Paul won't be forced to censor peoples sigs due to the
inability of some to ignore sigs they have issues with.

My 2 cents.

>From: Hanicram45@aol.com
>Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V9 #114
>
>I read somewhere that Pete said he was more a hawk than a dove and leaned 
>toward the conservative persuasion, which I understand. 

Way to practice what you preach.  Oh, and you're wrong.

>I thought Paul asked that the political 
>discussions be kept off the list and try to keep the subject matter focused

>on the Who and their activities, music, etc.  Regards, Ceenie.

You're confusing me.

>From: "Scott Schrade" <schrade@akrobiz.com>
>Subject: Re: Politics on the list
>
>God damn it!  Ceenie says "Shut up!"  
>
>So.....shut up!!

Easy big guy.  You'll give yourself an ulcer.
To much fun to be missed this summer if you're sick.
:-)

Stay in tune,
Kevin in VT