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

Re: ped discussion that never ends



> I'm not now!  Not with people coming up to me and

Scott:

I have to ask...how much is this really happening? I
mean, my store is Who all over from the sign outside
to the interior decoration and often the music playing
inside and no one is doing that to me. Just after it
happened, I got a few who mentioned it and when I said
"You don't really believe it" they admitted they did
not. I have yet to meet a single person who's
seriously believed Pete is a pedophile.

> alot.  Some posts are gonna to be dudes.

Jo:

I beg of you, don't post about dating. OK?

> Yawn.  I've never been impressed with JPJ.

Kevin:

So you'd rather have Pino? Not me, mate. I was just
thinking of my theory concerning what I see as Page's
deep envy of The Who, and how he failed to get Moon &
Entwistle for Zep but Pete might get JPJ for The Who.

> Actually, *you're* the only one that is actually
> allowing an exchange of
> ideas.  I do appreciate that.

Well...gee, thanks.

> Because I don't believe Pete would haphazardly make
> a statement on his web about this situation.

But he has done this sort of haphazard thing his
entire career, and as far as I can see that's
explanation enough right there. It fits like OJ's
glove did not.

> I haven't implied anything.  I've only stated it's
> inconsistent.

I hate to quote from a Speilberg movie, but that DOES
imply "This means something."

> But, who knows, maybe it means something.
> Are we not allowed to wonder?  To ask?  To consider?

Sure, I just wish it was more neutral. Not so "Ah HA!"

> What do you think?
> Understanding.
> Sense.

All these things are covered if one believes as I do
that Pete is simply inconsistant by nature.

> Going by Pete's original statements, that should be
> the *only* conclusion.

Should be, sure. But when did "should" ever happen?

> Didn't I just answer that?  A troubled man, trying
> to understand his past.
> Thus, research for his autobiography,.....as he
> originally stated.

OK, then CASE CLOSED! "We have a winnah..."

> Yes, but it still angers me to be portrayed like
> that. The gloves came off, then.

I just pity him, myself. In a single spasm of
arrogance, he alienated his three best Who friends
forever.

> Pete still is intent on making the point that he
> hasn't.

He wasn't charged.

> What?
> No, of course breaking one unrelated law doesn't
> mean you break this law.
> What?

Don't worry about it. Too complicated to explain.

> So, then, you're saying that his initial statements
> were made in haste, and
> were not completely accurate?

Or both statements.

> He *wasn't* doing research for his autobiography?

Which is not to say there's not some accuracy in both.
But perhaps not word for word.

> That's bullshit, Mark.
> Really.

No, no, can't you see what I mean? If you assume he is
or was covering up, that's definitely a problem. I
assume he's not, no problem.

> You, above, admit that there are inconsistencies,
> and that Pete is known for
> that.

Who wouldn't?

> How is it an assumption of bad intent to try and
> figure out which story is
> the correct one?

Because it assumes the other is not correct, and since
you (not JUST you) are also assuming he's clearing
these things with a legal department, that would then
strongly indicate they are purposeful
statements...and, being such, it could only be an
attempt to move the "story" over to a place more
consistant with evidence. Rather than a perhaps more
innocent-sounding one. And that's an indication of
something not so innocent. Maybe evidence that he was
lying with the first statement? See where this goes?

> Or, are you saying they are both wrong, and we'll
> just never really know
> what the f happened.

We probably won't.

> If we try and figure out (and we do, a bunch) which
> is the true story
> regarding his hearing loss, are we assuming bad
> intent?

Maybe "bad" is too strong a word to use. How about it
was an attempt by Pete to weasel out of doing
something he no longer wanted to do: tour as The Who.
Play "Pete Townshend" on stage, a characature of
himself.

> Caps are yelling.  Bold is emphasis.

I can't do bold on Yahoo. I have to use caps.

> Since bold doesn't come through on the list, folk
> use * xxx * for emphasis.

But you know I never, ever use emoticons of any sort.
This is an emoticom-free zone, right here.

> Come on, get with the program.

No, I chose to remain a rugged individual.

> The discussion was dead for several months there,
> until Pete posted about
> the issue.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

> Plus, I believe there is still legal movement
> regarding being on the sex
> offenders list, etc.

BARELY. I don't see how he can do anything about that.

> You're the one who took the stand that this whole
> issue was a non-issue.

That's not negative!

> Pete Townshend depicted by the media as a pedophile,
> and placed on the UK
> sex offenders registry is a non issue.
> O.K.

It's all been dealt with, though. Done, over, fini.
Except the list, and you know what? Maybe Pete should
have considered his actions before paying to go to the
site. So it's a small price to pay, really.

> Because your statement is the biggest "blow off".

Not considering Pete's history. If I had just said it
randomly, perhaps. But we KNOW this about him! You can
point to thousands of examples! That makes it a viable
argument, and it's still the single most credible one.

> You're basically saying, "who knows what Pete's
> saying, we shouldn't listen
> because what comes out of his mouth is always
> inconsistent, so it's never
> right. Let's give up."

That's an extremist way of looking at it. I said
merely what I said, that Pete being inconsistant is
hardly headline news.

> I've never said Pete did nothing wrong.

I'm starting to get a headache. You know what I
mean!!!!

> But, there have clearly been press that have picked
> up on even Pete's last
> statement.

I can't find one with Google.

> Brian is no longer posting news stories here.

He posted one just the other day.

> He posts them on who.net/news.
> Why do you think I've been bringing who.net/news
> stories here?
> And, while on that subject.....I could use some
> help!

Give me a few more weeks and we'll talk. I'll be done
with the treatments and back to my old self.

> Again, I'm not assuming he's lying.

Whatever you call it. It has to be intentional if he's
not merely inconsistant as usual. One of the other,
right?

> Maybe his lawyer found this good tactic and has now
> altered the story to
> paint a better picture for Pete.

Then that's a bad thing. IMHO. If that's true, then
there's something bad in the mix. Deceit.

> Doing research for autobiography vs. for a list to
> heighten awareness of sites.

Doing both at the same time? Multitasking?

> Visiting sites repeatedly ("3 or 4 times") vs.
> looking at a list.

Was it "sites" or "portals?" He paid once, that would
be the only site visit, yes?

> Bad use of words.  Legal wrangling?

For...what?

> I'm not convinced that Pete's team is just accepting
> being placed on the sex
> offenders registry.

I think they're just going to have to. Hell, if he
paid to go to a site then he got off light.

> Not.  Pete's last statement was made because of
> continued chat on his own board.

Well, that's a damned shame. I really don't see what
all the (W)hoopla is about.

> You need to get out more.

No I don't. I am too busy surviving this Bush economy
to be on more than one list. 

> This list, a Who list, and dare I say one of the
> best Who lists, has been so
> against even talking about this, that I don't feel
> comfortable voicing my
> concerns, concerns that others share.

You shouldn't feel uncomfortable about it, but does
that mean those of us who are dog tired of the subject
cannot also say so?

> What continues is this "why are you implying he's
> lying?  why are you
> implying he's a pedophile?"

Well, if he's lying and the topic is pedphilia, what's
the most obvious conclusion? If he visited ped sites
moer than once and lied about it, what's the obvious
conclusion? I don't think this is an odd way to look
at it!

> If Pete's statements, or even his lawyers statements
> had been what this last
> diary entry was, Pete would have been seen as a
> hero, not a "yeah right, he
> was doing research for his
> autobiography...wink-wink....nudge-nudge."

Making the huge assumption they would have believed
it. I don't think they would. They would have looked
at the timeline and seen what was there to be seen. A
hero would have contacted authorities FIRST and THEN
gone to the site. Right? I don't find Pete's actions
here heroic in any way. More like foolish and
short-sighted.

> What, is that a sin to say *that*?

No.

> What is so wrong about looking at a situation from
> the most cynical
> perspective, and from the most innocent perspective?
> Do I lose my membership to the list?

I would hope not, but it's not the proper way to
conduct an investigation. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

=====
Just say Yes to Wes!

        Cheers         Mark Leaman

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree