Old Stones.

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

>From: "william sturm" <hapijac@msn.com>
>Subject: Re: Stoned Who
>
>Kevin,It is just like Pete said,He does not like being in the spotlight!
John
>and Roger loved it so it was good for them! I'm afraid we will have to deal
>with it!

That's a Pete BS statement if I've ever heard him make one.
He loves the spotlight.
Just can't admit it.
At least that's always been my impression.
Ya can't be a band spokesman without some affinity for attention.

>From: "An English Boy" <peter_dennis_blandford_townshend@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Stoned Who
>
>>For the record, I like old Stones.  Stones before they became a broken
>>record.
>>Yep, that's how I'll leave that.
>
>What do you consider to be "old Stones?"
>
>From: "Mark R. Leaman" <bushchoked@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Am I a Who fan, for a moment?
>Lew:
>
>Can we agree it's the Jones / Taylor years? Because Ron Wood, as a
counterpoint for Richards, is >no counterpoint at all.

Well, not sure I want to venture into this discussion.  Not really enough of
a Stones fan to be able to hold my own.  I mean, I can hold my own, but it
won't have anything to do with The Stones.
Lets just say I like (and own) the following (older) Stones albums:
Hot Rocks (being a compilation of "old" Stones).
Let it Bleed
His Majesties Request
Ya-Ya's

I also own Tattoo You, but don't consider that "old" or "from the day"
Stones.

Now, back to Jeff and his wadded panties!
(nice visual)

Kevin in VT