Monsters and Gods

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

>From: Oust_the_pretender
>Subject: Monsters and Gods
>
>Does that make him a pedophile?

Who is saying he's a pedophile?
Who is even implying it?
No one.
So please, stop implying that we are.

Are you saying Pete did *nothing* wrong?
That's what Jo's saying.  Well, at least *was* saying before she retracted
what was a good and insightful post, and then flipped me the fucking bird
for pointing it out.  What was that?  A bi-polar moment?
Roger even admits Pete was wrong.
*Pete* even admits he was wrong.
He obviously did *something* wrong to get himself in "trouble".
Let's not forget that he is still on that damn registry (not that I agree
with that).
So, let's just accept, like the rest of the world, that he
did....something.....wrong.
It's the "something" that's hard to figure out though.

>WILL THIS THREAD NEVER BE RESOLVED????

IT MIGHT NOT!
I find it more interesting and relevant though than startrek, religion,
personal tragedy stories, or even politics and the economy, to be honest.

>> I say examine, and let the chips fall where they
>> may.
>
>If you say so, Chip.

Thank you, Cookie.

>I say examine fine but don't
>assume bad intent. I've yet to see that, I'm afraid.

Where is all this bad intent??
I'm only looking at what's happened, and am confused as to why the
statements have changed, and seem to indicate different things.
It almost sounds like you fear there *is* bad intent.

>Most of the discussion has been "Does this mean Pete
>did something wrong?" Or "If Pete is innocent, then
>why did he say this?"

Yeah, heaven forbid.
This *is* a Who discussion list after all.
And, to correct your above statement, it's been more like "if Pete said
that, then how can he now say this?  How do the two fit together?"
I see it as an attempt to understand.
If that leads some to make conclusions, then so be it.
Why does this bug you so much?

>Maybe because he isn't nearly the songwriter?

Jimi was a great songwriter.
"Click bang, what a hang......."

> He was
>certainly a better guitarist, but most of his "sound"
>came from The Who anyway. Pete was using feedback at
>least as far back as 1964. Mitch Mitchell is a Moon
>wannabe for sure.

Yeah, but Brian Wilson wasn't nearly the guitarist, or performer that Pete
was/is.

Kevin in VT