[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Testing 1-2-3



Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 01:42:19 EDT
From: SicilianMother@aol.com

What the hell is wrong with us??  I cannot believe *we* <yes, we!> got that
wonderful letter from Phoenix House and there is barely a Hoooraaa on the
list.....
[snip]
Ackhem.....ok, I'll stop yelling now.  But, guyzz, why isn't anyone kicking
up their heels?  We ought to be celebrating, don't you think?
Well, since you ast, here's what I posted to infoshop, where the Phoenix statement is quoted and comments invited:

Better late than never. But the "We regret we didn't stand up for him before" rankles nonetheless. Were they the only actor on two continents that didn't get a copy of Pete's essay A Different Bomb, was the staff too overworked to read it, or did they just bin it?

And what do they mean by saying Pete "should have been 'less publicly cautioned'"?? As far as I know, a caution is what it is, and once it's imposed, there's no way it won't be publicized.

I've also got to say that it doesn't do much for my confidence in Phoenix's attention to detail when the author of the full statement on Pete refers to "the entire gambit of unspeakable abuses" (should be "gamut") and to "Roger Daltry"; the site tells people to check the "Newsesk" (should be "Newsdesk") forum for the full statement on Pete (http://www.phoenixsurvivors.com/Newsdeskx.html), and their home page (http://www.phoenixsurvivors.com/Welcomex.html) says, "we bare witness" (should be "bear", and considering the subject matter the error is particularly unfortunate). The healthy helping of crow they're eating now indicates their detail problems can extend below the surface. Credit to them for reversing their stance but all they did was remove the additional headache they created for Pete's defense team.

Cheers,
--
Alan
"That's unbelievable, if that's true."
--Howard Stern, 5/25/00