Jane, you ignorant...just kidding.

["Sigel, James J" <james.siegel@xxxxxx>]

Thanks Lela, Jim, Scott, and Mystery Lurker, etc, for understanding my
rants of yesterday.  I wasn't too happy with my articulation of my
feelings, and I'm glad that I didn't lose the context.  I appreciate it.

Scott:

>Anyone want to go out for a few drinks tonight?  I need one.

Let's make it a double, shall we?  I'm with you, I could use a few
myself.

Point/Counter-Point...

Kevin:

>>I mean, anyone here ever smoke a joint?

>Your analogy is flawed...(snip)...The purchase of a substance for your
personal use,
>that harms no one other than your self vs. the purchase of a substance
for your personal
>use where innocent children have been directly harmed. It's not even
close.

Actually it's closer than you know Kevin.  Child pornography is
protected and funded through organized crime.  Drug trafficking and
distribution is also handled by organized crime.  The two are linked
obviously.  You are putting money in the pocket of purveyors of child
porn when you buy illegal narcotics, there's no getting around it.  And
if you held the "accomplice" theory to that, anyone who ever smoked a
joint is equally guilty.

Defense #2 of my "flawed" analogy:  By attributing the "accomplice"
concept I cited in my analogy, you are also guilty by association when
involved in the "purchase of a substance for your personal use" because
you are contributing to an organization that uses savage brutality,
including rape, murder, torture, as means of distribution of the illegal
product.  Check out "Killing Pablo" on the History channel if you want a
full account of the inhumanity involved in drug trafficking.  The sheer
savagery involved rivals child pornography in its evils.  On this level,
the analogy is not flawed either.

Finally, if I wanted to play devil's advocate, there is no difference
between buying reefer for "personal use" or purchasing child porn for
"personal use".  What's the difference?  Both are illegal, and both are
provided by murderers and rapists.  By purchasing one or the other, you
fund the same criminals.  The analogy is sound.

>If you want to argue about the indirect harm of those in the drug
world,
>you must first acknowledge that there would be no harm if said drugs
were simply legalized.

No, I don't have to acknowledge any such thing.  Because this isn't an
discussion about the legalization of either.  However, I'll be honest.
If this WERE a discussion over legalization, I would agree with what you
say here, but it isn't.

>No one has accused Pete of anything, from what I've read.

Then you and I are reading two different things.  You called Pete an
"accomplice to child rapists".  That, my friend, is an accusation, pure
and simple.  It was that VERY accusation that led me to defend Pete in
my post, among others.

>>What, you expect him to stand tall and let the shit hit him without
>flinching?
>
>Yes, I expect him to stand tall.

And that is a personal expectation of yours that I don't necessarily
agree with.  A personal opinion you are entitled to.  But notice that I
said, "without flinching".  I personally think he already is standing
tall, but he is flinching as well.  The hero worshipper in me wishes he
didn't flinch, but the rational person in me completely understands if
he is.  I know I would be flinching too, so I don't hold him to a higher
standard than I have for myself.  Only human, you know.

>>But behind the celebrity, behind the
>>genius, he's just a skinny middle aged guy from London with a big nose

>>and nothing more.
>
>You, nor anyone on this list believes that.
>Pete has consistently set a higher standard.
>I want him to meet it, now.

Pretty bold statement Kevin, but bold isn't necessarily correct.  No, I
can't speak for the others on this one, but for me, I DO believe that.
That's the difference between what I called personal outrage compared to
a more objective view. You're wrong to indicate that I would write
something that I didn't believe in.  I don't work that way, sorry.  I do
agree, though, Pete has set a higher standard, but that standard
includes wearing your heart and feelings on your sleeve.  He's doing
just that right now, I think.  That being said, he's completely IN
character.  Not to mention the fact that when you operate the way a Pete
Townshend does, then you are also vulnerable.  Remember the "I know what
it's like to be a woman" bullshit that was so controversial?

>I neglected to answer this question.
>I may have with "an apology", but that's not all of it.
>I'm pissed at Pete.
>I'm pissed that he did this.
>I don't understand the rationale.
>I'm pissed he's on a sex offenders list.
>I'm pissed his career is tarnished.
>I'm pissed he or The Who may not be able to travel to the US to play.
I'm pissed The Who's reputation is being tarnished. >I'm pissed at the
whole damn thing, and I really don't *know* what I want "from him".

We're in agreement again.  I am pissed too.  Very pissed.  I wish it
never happened, but it did and I can't change that.  I bet Pete wishes
it never happened more than all of us put together.  But I'm not going
to attack him anymore than he's already been and is being attacked.

Here's what has alleviated some of the anger that I associated with this
whole sorry affair.  I stopped idol worship a LONG time ago, but if one
person could transcend reality and idol worship to me, then it's Pete
Townshend.  This ordeal has been very painful for me, as well as all of
us.  But as I step into reality and remember that he IS just a big nosed
guitar player from London, then be is revealed to me as just another
human being, very capable of fucking up and not "standing tall" as the
superhero I can easily make him out to be.  It's a mind game you can
play on yourself, and once you realize that Pete is not a demi-god, you
can find more understanding of his very human reactions.  More food for
thought.

>And I tell ya, in defense of my Burger King "whopper" statement,
>if my kid's picture were on that web site that a person paid to see,
>I'd want to go after the guy (sue) who paid the criminals money,
>who paid money to see my kid on that site.
>
>That's not such an unreasonable "whopper" of a sentiment.

No, it's not unreasonable at all.  Even if it's not my kid up there,
someone purchasing this crap is guilty of a crime too, no doubt.  The
"whopper" I referred to, and still disagree with, is calling Pete an
"accomplice" in child rape.  He's not.  He was very stupid, nothing
more.  On a side note, the fact that you would "sue" shows the kind of
decent human being you are; it's to be commended.

I can't say that I would be such a fine specimen of humanity in that
case.  I would kill the fucker, plain and simple.  And very slowly too.

Jim in Colorado