Re: Pete in Denial

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

	>From: Ken in MD 
	>Subject: Re: Pete in Denial 
>>>>But I think the rules here with respect to the sex
>offenders register might be a bit askew. But then I
>suppose I would wouldn't I?<<<
>
>It appears he is being sarcastic here.

Yeah, that's how I'm reading it too.  

>In his view he
>has been wrongly "branded" as a sex offender and so he
>is poking at the perception that of course one would
>object to being on this list.  I'm sure when experts
>in pedophilia point out that the "research defense" is
>commonly used by those who are guilty, it rankles him
>too.

Exactly.
But.............
I don't believe that Pete is a sex offender.  I'm upset that he is being included on such a list.
But, let's stop for a moment and think whether this is justified????
He contributed money to an organization that is in the business of raping kids.

Put yourselves in pete's shoes for that moment when he decides to go and check out this site.  Then, the even more prominent moment when he decides to pull out his card, thinks to himself.....<hmmmmmmmm, i'm going to pay money to these creeps>......and continues!  
Again, if he's already seen one site, why continue *AGAIN* !!!!!!!
WHAT DID HE THINK HE WAS GOING TO SEEEEEEEEEEE?
He *knew* what he was going to see, yet he wanted to see anyway.
*THAT* is pretty fucked up.
Worthy of keeping track of a guy who does this???
I think so.
If his name wasn't Pete Townshend, there'd be no question.  The dude visited sites on multiple occasions.
What sort of research????
Did the photo's have different meaning the 2nd time?  The third?  Oh, the fourth occasion gave him some unique insight for his book?
Bull, fucking, shit.
Try defending that to a non-who nut.
Try it!

I can't, nor will I attempt.

>Well, sorry Pete.  Too bad.  You made this bed for
>yourself and you get to sleep in it, dragging all of
>us along in varying degrees.  You don't really have a
>leg to stand on in your protestations and you might
>want to get out that old Keith Richard's note to you
>after you blabbed on in an interview:
>"Dear Pete,
>Shut Up!
>Love, Keith"

Yep, yep, yep and yep.

Here's what my wife just wrote me when I forwarded the article that discusses payment to the site, and my views that I posted this morning to this list:

"I'm about bawling over here.
You better hide that F$@#!! "I'm innocent" T-shirt before I burn it."

That, good people of igtc, is the reaction of rage by a mother who is incensed that a person would contribute money to this sort of thing.
That's the honest emotion of a mother who feels great love for a child and can just feel what it would be like to have her own child viewed on the net after being raped.

We need to accept this.
More importantly, **PETE** needs to accept this and come out with a heart felt apology.
Pete *IS* in denial.

I still haven't responded to my wife.  I don't know how.
I can't blame her one bit.

Unconditional support for Pete?
Not me.

I still love him.
I still relate to him.
But, he better fucking snap out of it quick and come to grips with how he's hurt his fans.
Not to mention how this will be received by everyone out there.

Kevin in VT