Re: love ain't for keepin', scary stuff, sad stuff enough already!

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I've forgotten nothing; you can have your "opinion" all you like, but I 
> wasn't at the party and didn't do anything TO the party, and even if I was 
> and/or I had done something to it...that STILL doesn't give him leave to 
> bring his bad feelings to the list! OK? No "opinion" can change that. So my 
> point remains intact. If I'd killed his pets, if I'd taken away his way to 
> make a living, if I'd alienated his family, if I'd wrongfully had him put 
> in prison for life...it would STILL not justify bringing his stupid, 
> bullheaded hatred to this list.

I'll agree that Jeff was at fault for not dealing with it more privately, 
but then, there's no need to respond in kind.


> >Regardless that you and Jeff had a major falling
> out about it, it's time to let it go already.
>
> So stop stating his "case" and tell him to let it go already. I let it go a 
> long time ago. He came back out of the blue with no provocation insulting 
> us. HE did that. I did not. Kevin did not. Scott did not. Clear? WE are NOT 
> the guilty parties here. HE and ONLY he is. By trying so desperately to 
> make it look otherwise you're eroding your own credibilty. And making me 
> wonder why, because your points don't make any sense at all in light of the 
> facts. Why are you pushing this so hard? Why is it so important to make it 
> look like we've done something to Jeff anyway? As Zappa would say: "What's 
> the deal?" Is this indeed some vast half-wit conspiracy?

I guess you mean the "scary" comment was an insult?  This would actually be 
an interesting discussion and I'd like to have heard Jeff support it.  I've 
just accused Fang of being scary I suppose, but then it's not because of his 
devotion to Pete.  This is a curious phenomenon that too serious an 
attachment to Pete or to Roger or to The Who is considered "scary."

Frankly, I think it's something that's pulled on the women moreso than then 
men on the lists, as there have been comments about this woman or that woman 
being too attached to Roger or to Pete or whatever.  The latest was comments 
about Trish last fall because she really wanted to make it to Who shows 
regardless of her illness.  I personally found the comments somewhat 
offensive, as Trish should be able to do what she wants.  You might say that 
she invited comment by publishing her feelings on a public list, but still I 
don't know that people should tell her how to enjoy her life.  Or maybe they 
have a right, but then Trish would have a right to tell them where to stick 
it.  Where was Miss Manners when we needed her?

Anyway, is it "scary" for listers to put their true feelings on the lists?  
Does this make them seem a psychological risk in some way?  Was there some 
reason that Scott and Kevin shouldn't have said what they felt?  We had 
noted that it was a sign they were closely involved with Pete, but I thought 
we were discussing it fairly rationally.  Or, is it rude to inflict feelings 
on people who just want information?


> No, he is the ONLY offender. He'd like you to make it appear to the list 
> like we're equally to blame, because list opinion is important to him (I 
> happen to know), but it's just not so! Not ONE of us said anything when he 
> returned. ANY hostility, any hatred, and all of the destruction comes from 
> him. What are you trying to suggest here, that we now can't even react when 
> blatantly insulted? "Oh, walk softly around Jeff no matter what he says 
> about you, because that's his style." Since when did being an asshole 
> become a "style" anyway? Am I supposed to feel sorry for him because he 
> insulted me then feels he can't post here as a result? And, too, somehow 
> magically *I* am to blame for this. Is this suddenly the Bizzaro Who 
> List??? Or, to be blunt, do you now work for the Bush administration? Only 
> they deal in THIS much fantasy...they make Tolkien look like a non-fiction 
> writer! And you're starting to as well!

I haven't changed my political philosophies.  What do you think of Howard 
Dean?  I've been thinking of sending him some money.  :)


> > You and Kevin great guys, and I hate to see this go on.
>
> It WASN'T "going on," until he insulted us. We've tried being nice, 
> friendly, apologetic, forgiving, and finally just ended up ignoring him. 
> And none of it worked because he won't accept it. He can't even stand being 
> ignored, it seems. So talk to him, not me. Not Kevin. Not Scott. Really, 
> Lela, you just can't make it our fault by any method...because it's NOT! 
> CLEARLY not.
>
> Kevin IS a great guy. Scott too. I don't know either VERY well, but what I 
> do know of them tells me they are decent, honorable guys. They don't 
> deserve this from you, and frankly Jeff is just not worth it. You might 
> want to reconsider your position. As I reminded Joe: not so long ago Jeff's 
> best friends on this list were Kevin, Scott and I. See how he treats us 
> now? You might well be next.

Well, these things do happen, I guess.  So far, though, I've gotten along 
very well with Jeff.  I'd rather not cut off a friendship on the possibility 
that it might turn sour later on.  That seems sort of rash.


keets

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus