Pete = self-destructive? and some politics and probing

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

>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: "Violence/It's the only thing that will make you seesense... "
>
>But you have to recall that Pete is self-destructive, and never more so than 
>when he/TheWho have a terrific project in the works.  

Wow. Interesting.
I've been following a very similar thought process lately.
It does seem that when ever The Who starts to become active, and begins to get more notoriety and notice from the public (aka, the lights are on, and all are watching) things begin to go a bit wrong.  I don't know, maybe that was too much of a generalization.
But, the conclusion that I came to wasn't that Pete is self-destructive, but rather that Pete is consistent in who he is, and it's the fact that more people are paying attention, and thus mis-understanding him, that starts to cause trouble.
Just the way we like it. (sort of).

But, when Roger stated recently that the past 9 months have been some of the most difficult for The Who (something like that), it's not all things The Who or Pete has had control of.
John's death, and then the Operation Ore stuff were beyond Pete's or The Who's control.
I include Operation Ore, because what Pete is currently being investigated for happened, what, 5-6 years ago?

>Here's a copy of the law:
>
160.-(2)a)  that he had a legitimate reason for having the photograph in his
possession; or

Ahhhhhh yes, good 'ol article 160, sub-section 2, clause "A" is the one that *does* include the verbiage "legitimate reason".
:-)

>The law is about possession, and not about accessing child porn websites.

Yes.  Exactly.
Hence the "I didn't download" statements.

But, if true, the "I didn't download" statement, along with the "I was doing research for my book", which to many *should* be seen as a legitimate reason, is a pretty darn strong case in support of Pete.
That, and all his past actions and work for children paints a pretty clear picture to anyone willing to look.
    
>Assuming that Pete's lawyer has advised him on what to say, it looks like 
>they might be planning a defense under (2)(a), just in case.  I've also seen 
>some comment about (5) as well, to the effect that the law was different in 
>1996/97.

Ahhhhh, great minds thinking alike.  :-)

>From: Zenswhen <bushchoked@yahoo.com>
>Subject: My Generation SACD review & a touch of violence
>
>Kevin:

Yes, Mr. bushchoked.

>Of course, Ghandi would see a way out of this current situation other than violence.

Chances are...

>So should anyone, really. It's pretty clear and obvious, and also that violence now is just 
>going to lead to more and more horrific violence against the US later.

I'm not sold on that premise.
Not one to buy into the "well if we stop bugging them, they'll go away".
I mean, hell, Bush tried to distance himself from the whole mess in the Middle East when he first came into office.  A big mistake in my book at the time.  One that obviously came back to bite him square in the ass, and hard.

>Here's another good and relevent quote for you: Those who refuse to learn from history are 
>doomed to repeat it.

That quote could be used by both sides of this current national and world debate.

Just a quick statement about politics on list.............IMVHO.....
I've never minded having political discussions here.  Hell, we spend a bunch of time together engaged in some pretty complicated stuff.  We all care about our world.
The point where political discussion here gets stupid, is when it gets personal.
So (this isn't directed at you Mark), let's not let this slip into some sort of personal thing with statements of "Mark's Blather" and other crap like that.

Contrary to what some may think, it *is* actually possible to debate tough issues *without* degenerating into stupidity.

Plus, the use of the word blather is plagiarism here, and is trade-marked to one particular lister.  ;-)

>From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@ascpl.lib.oh.us>
>Subject: Re: Who's in a mystery
>
>I think Kevin did the "Brian prodding" last time.  Any-
>one feel like prodding Brian?

Phewww!
I had to do a double-take.
Thought you wrote probing.

Kevin in VT