The endless discussion

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

	>From: Oust_the_pretender 
	>Subject: The endless discussion 
>
>> are getting at in the matter.  Sounds to me like you
>> are all getting NO WHERE!
>
>Suzanne:
>
>That's how it appears to me as well.

Suzanne and Mark, sitting in a tree !!!!

>Worse than Did You Steal My Money? I dunno...

*Nothing* is worse than did You Steal My Money.

>It's acceptable. It's hip.

Kind of like dividing the US into places where the constitution applies, and doesn't?  You know, the "no free speech zones"?

>> Who is saying he's a pedophile?
>
>What are you saying, then?

Dude, I can't believe I have to say this *again*.
I *never* thought Pete was a pedophile.
I only thought what Pete said, that he felt he was abused sexually by his grandmother, and as a result was doing research about pedophilia so as to understand his own past, and to accurately portray it in his autobiography.

Is that clear enough?
I'm frustrated that I have to continue to repeat that over and over.
And, not just to you, but to anyone who has a problem with simply looking at the inconsistencies and resulting confusion of Pete's statements.

>If he went to the site(s)
>multiple times, what is he?

A troubled man, looking to understand his past?

>According to what you're
>saying here. Once you say what he is, that should end
>the discussion (I hope).

I've never said he was a Ped.  
Show me in the archives.
Anyone.

And, to clarify (*again*) my "scary" venture to the Phoenix House....that was to gain understanding of the perspective of victims and why they were so upset with Pete.
I had to side with victims and their feelings.  I think that's only fair.  Or, should I be admonished further for that.  Jeff House seems to feel I was down right scary.

>I'm trying to figure out WHAT you are saying. That his
>statements are consistent? Well...

You obviously have been skimming over my posts because you've painted this topic as a "non issue" from the very start.

>No one has done NOTHING wrong. But having done wrong,
>does that mean he did wrong HERE?

??

>> Roger even admits Pete was wrong.
>> *Pete* even admits he was wrong.
>
>And we talked about all of this at length MONTHS ago.

And, as Alan also pointed out, it could have  *all* been avoided had Pete's "Details" been made public right at the beginning.
It's all different now.
No research for autobiography.  No multiple visits.
Was it multiple visits to the list?  What, he doesn't have a printer?

>> IT MIGHT NOT!
>
>(sigh)

Hey, you yelled first!
And, I spend more time defending myself from people trying to put words in my mouth, than actually discussing the issue.
Sheesh!

>Endlessly??? You're comparing isolated references or
>individual posts to a thread that's gone on for
>months.

But the *issue* has gone on for months.

>> Where is all this bad intent??
>
>Show me where it's not. The beginning of the
>discussion was: Pete's statements aren't consistent
>with what he said before. That certainly suggests bad
>intent. Then you said you don't accept the "Pete is
>never consistent" explanation. So where does that
>leave us? In negative territory, to say the least.

Hey, those are the facts.
If the chips are falling there, that's not on my watch.
It doesn't make sense to me.
And, no one here has even tried to make sense about it to me.
All I get is this..."don't ask, don't tell" crap.
Well, I'm asking.
Why does everyone want to ignore?

You see, this is the core.
I even stated that I don't believe anyone is lying.
But everyone is trying to paint me (us) as "implying" there is lying.
I argue that that is where the chips are falling.
I'm not implying anything.
I've stated that it doesn't make sense to me.
But, I say, I say, BUTT!  If people are coming to the conclusion that is sounds like we think he's lying, by simply re-stating the facts, and how the story has changed (and it has), then clearly others in the world (press, etc.) will draw the same conclusion by simply reading Pete's statements.

And, I don't believe for a second that Pete is permitted to make public statements (that we *know* the press is reading) about this issue without his legal team reviewing them, or even writing.

>I just don't see the point of this discussion, that's
>all I'm saying.

That's fair.

>It goes on and goes no where.

The majority is simply trying to defend ourselves from this perception that if you question Pete in the least, you accuse him of Pedophilia.
To All:  THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!!!

>Either
>Pete is a pedophile or he isn't

No.  What, we're not allowed to talk about his legal defense strategy, and the potential impact on the press, his fans, and ultimately The Who?

I don't get that.
For someone who will travel, party with us at a show, but then protest the demise of The Who's reputation and legacy by not going in to see the show, I would think that you would be concerned with how this effects The Who's and Pete's legacy.
And, make no mistake, it does.
It has.
And, it will in the future.

>Because it's well covered ground. Damn, turf doesn't
>cover like this thread, you know?
 
How 'bout wigs?

>As I said, I'd say Wilson ONLY if forced to say
>someone. Actually I don't think there's an American
>musician that compares to Pete.

I'm with you on that.
I raised Jimmi only as an attempt to discuss something other than Pedophilia.
If, you can believe that.

>Just say Yes to Wes!

The Doctor is in.

Kevin in VT