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

Ain't it da Truth...



Kevin:

>My apologies if I've insulted you, but I can't imagine that you
>really believe Pete is just another shmo.

Let me start off by saying - "No apologies necessary."  None whatsoever
required.  I'm glad that, given a touchy history of discussion between
you and I, we can disagree and not go for each other's throat.  We have
unintentionally acted as role models for this list!  Ain't choo proud
too?

And yes, I do think Pete and every other human being on this planet, is
just that:  a shmo.

>>You are putting money in the pocket of purveyors of child
><porn when you buy illegal narcotics, there's no getting around it.

>That's even a bigger stretch.
>If I'm buying kelo's of Coke, or Heroin, there may be a long, long
trail that
>could ultimately lead back to child porn in some sort.
>But, the point of all of this nonsense is in the intent, isn't it?

Don't be so quick with the "genius" references Mark.  The genius falls
to me because both of you illustrated my point for  me.  Your quick
objections to my analogy perfectly proved my point:  Of course it's a
"flawed" analogy, and of course it's a "stretch" - I presented it as a
foolish comparison.  THAT, my good gentlemen, was my intention.  To show
that accusing Pete of being an "accomplice" to child rape, is as foolish
as blaming the casual pot smoker of contributing to the evils of
organized crime.

That was and has been my contention regarding this issue from the start.
Nice of you to fall for me little scheme!  Heh-heh...  Ain't I a
stinker?  Genius...?  Hey, I like the ring to that!

>If  "The analogy is sound" than you must view all people who smoke pot,
>he same way you view pedophiles.

Exactly!!!  You got it!  And by that same token, if you accuse Pete as
an accessory to child rape...?  Not a very sound accusation, right?

>Give 'the people (NOT JUST US FANS) what they want...an apology".

Perhaps you're ARE correct here.  I know it would help out a lot of
people.  However, I'm not saying that I think Pete shouldn't give an
apology, but I was saying that I understood why he hasn't made an
"official" apology, and I understood why he was being defensive.  I
still maintain his human weaknesses, so I understand why he hasn't made
any grand gestures.

>You don't have to be a superhero to stand tall and make amends with
those that you have hurt.
>On one degree it's just common sense, on the other, it's just the right
thing to do.

Again, we meet eye to eye.  I'm in total agreement.

>Oh my god, dude, I hope you're not implying that I believe Pete is a
demi-god.
>If you are, you're way off

Easy Kevin me boy, easy...  Referring to the "demi-god" label, it was
just a figure of speech, nothing more, implying nothing other than the
very common and popular idol worship that exists out there today.

I hope you'll notice that in no way have I (or you), gotten personal in
this discussion, and we should both get little stars on our foreheads
for such good behavior.  I have no intentions of changing that rapport
either.

>I still hold out hope that Pete will calm himself, and revert to his
"softy - poetic" side,
>and address the hurt that he has caused.

And that would be the grand gesture that would lead to a lot of healing
for his fans.  I think the other witch-hunters out there would care less
though.  I also think that he should make a very public anti-porn
gesture too if he wants to save face with the majority of "civilians"
out there.  He can't just pretend that it never happened.

Oh well, ain't it the truth...

Jim in Colorado