FoxPinballDistortionPoo-Poo

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

>From: The Real Me <emerald.eyes@rcn.com>
>Subject: Re: MC's utter brainlessness
>
>Yes, you did! :)

Well, I wasn't targeting you exactly.
But, I figured a response would come from *someone* (on the right)!  hee-hee.

>>The AP specifically sanctioned them as a result.
>
>I never heard *that*. And even if that did happen, it's ludicrous.

I saw it in The Washington Post and on other on-line media right around the 2000 election.
Complaint was regarding the behind the scene staffing of many loyal Bush-ites at Fox.
AP condemned Fox for the hiring of blatantly right-wing supporters.
Of particular note was the Bush relative who was then put in charge of "calling" the election.
That, according to the AP, was a *big* no-no.

tsk-tsk.

>Again, I ask what other cable channel has as many people from both
>political sides with their own nightly shows, as regular panelists,
>etc.

It's the people calling the shots that counts in my book.

>They only *appear* so tilted to the right because the others are so
>blatantly tilted to the left.

Ok.

>They're not perfect and I do think they
>lean to the right, but far less than, say, CNN is very leftist.

It just strikes me that *every* rightly friend that I have has sworn their allegiance to Fox.
They all have sworn to me how impartial Fox is. "Give it a try Kevin".
I gave it a try.  My wife and I have given it multiple tries.
And we both have found it blatantly biased.
We're pretty objective people, and we don't see the same bias on any other news outlet.
Not even Abu-dabi!
Abu----Dabi!
Everyone, say it together!  
Abu----Dabi!
It's fun!
Abu---Dabi!!!!

>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Pinball Wizard An Embarrassment?
>
>Have these other folks seen The Who do TOMMY?  I think they give it just the 
>right spin, half joke and one hundred percent serious.

Rest assured I've had them sit and watch IOW.

>Or, Fox may be just rude, while CNN is inept.  I've been avoiding both.

Yeah, CNN has really lost it as of late.
Inept seems to be a good analysis.

>From: Sroundtable@aol.com
>Subject: proof proves the truth

Yes it does.
Far better than your distortion.

>Mc writes:
>
>> >BTW, has my band's demo of Success Story made it to you 
>> yet?  A few listers
>> have it.  I'd like to get your thoughts.

That's a direct question of me.
A far cry from just "a post" to the list in general that I then interjected in with a "dig".

>>Kevin from VT writes:
>> 
>> Oh, that's sweet.
>> But, one problem.
>> I really have no interest.
>> At all.

You labeled this "a dig"?
Well, if you insist.

Hey,
'Don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to.'

Lesson learned.
Per your request....If you ask me a question....I'll ignore you.
Why not just skip the whole thing, and NOT ask me a question?

>From: "Scott Schrade" <schrade@akrobiz.com>
>Subject: Re: Pinball Wizard An Embarrassment? 
>
>Well, I guess without a survey, we'll never know for sure.  As I've stated,
>I've *never* met anyone who thought the pinball part of TOMMY was
>silly or even questionable.  You have.  Maybe everyone I know thinks
>the damn thing *is* silly & they're just not telling me!  Ha!  But doubtful.
>My friends aren't exactly shy about expressing their opinions, pro-Who
>or anti-Who.

I've been wondering about that!  Ask Jeff what he thinks about Pinball Wizard in relation to the rest of the album.  He's obviously very into music, and has an appreciation for The Who.  But also seems like he'll be honest and unbiased.

I asked Tania (me wife) last evening.
Her quote "it's kind of kooky, but The Who is kind of kooky in a way".

>Stop it!  You have not! <pissed on sacred who ground> We're having a healthy Who discussion!  
>That's all!

Ok, then stop yelling at me!  ;-)

>Now, if you said something negative about 
>"Sister Disco," then we'd have to talk.  ;-)   

I *love* Sister disco!

>Fair enough.  I think we've "tilted" this pinball machine of a discussion anyway (!).  
>(Ha!  I've been waiting to use that one!)

good one!

>The Who camp *loves* to spin a good yarn.

But what motivation could there be to spin this yarn?

>The "story" of Pete writing it to get a favorable review from Nik is con-
>spicuously absent here, & Pete himself is said to enjoy the game, as well.
>Go figure.

Ahhhhh, the plot thickens.
But, I tend to think that the fact that there is the spinning of this yarn, by someone (and maybe it's not the who camp) supports what I've been saying that the perception (if that's indeed all it is.....jury now seems to be out on that) of this yarn is subject to poo-poo-dom. 

Thanks for your words Scott.
I was feeling a bit persecuted there.
Kevin in VT