Re: Why to Rolling Stone?

["Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Keithjmoon70
>Subject: Re: Why to Rolling Stone?
>
>Oh Kevin, don't worry so much.

I'll worry as much as I damn well want to.  Thanks much.
But, in this case, who's worrying?

>Everything is going to be all right.

If you say so Jon.  If you say so.

>Roger has supported Pete and I dig that.

Who said anything about Roger?

 >Lela is a classy person that admire
>for her constant support as well.

Yes, you've made that abundantly clear.

>Roger is not in denial for being a rock, is
>he?

Again, who's talking about Roger?
But, while on the subject, you nor anyone else knows for certain how it is
that Roger has been a Rock.
There are many ways.
Do you suppose he thinks Phoenix House was just after publicity?
I *seriously* doubt that.

IMO, Roger's Rockness probably has more to do with keeping Pete's head on
straight and giving him some hard reality.
But, again, what do I know.  No more or less than you.

>Did I say it right this time?

What the hell are you talking about?

> Did I pass the test?

There's no test.

>Can I join your club?

You mean circle of good Who fans/friends?
Do you not feel a part of that?
What ever.
Nice glimpse into your true feelings.

>And, by giving Lela a compliment, I am not implying that you are *not*
>classy.

Yeah, ok.
Sure.
However you want to paint it.
How about a rock?
How about kind?
But hear me when I say that by throwing little one line messages like that,
you are for sure alienating folk.  Well, me, at the very least.
If you want to side-step your intentions and feelings on this, fine.
You're walkin' like your talkin'.
Uh huh.
Yep.

Guess I'll start pointing out Scott's intelligence, clearly making it known
that I feel he is somehow more intelligent than you or others.

I could go on, but there's really no point.
You know exactly what I'm saying, and you know exactly what you are saying
when you make posts like that.
Who's fooling Who?

>but our
>communication needn't get so nasty.

There are different types of "nasty".
There is direct and in your face nasty.  Which, I respect, because it shows
courage and actually respect to the person it's directed to.  No hiding from
how you feel.  It's honest.  In your face.  No running and hiding and behind
the back innuendo.

Then, there's the little pacifist way that you seem to be undertaking.
Not giving people the respect to address them head on.  Rather using subtle
remarks that leave implications.
Way to walk like you talk.

>I really like Scott, and you as well, so I
>just stopped.

No, you didn't.
You just changed your strategy.

>But I do think that Keets just happens to be a genius. (Nothing personal
:-)

Yeah, well, Mark thinks *I'm* a genius.  But, he's not going out to form the
Kevin in VT fan club.
And what do you think Mark was saying by calling *me* genius?
That Jim was a genius too?
If you believe that, I've got some swamp land............

Do you get it now?

>UnGowa!

Praise be?

Kevin in VT