A bit of perspective

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

	>From: Oust_the_pretender 
	>Subject: Re: The Never-ending story 
>
>What I have done is send out a quick: "He's involved
>in stopping child porn, he checked out a site and
>immediately called the police to report it." That's
>accurate and covers it pretty well, IMHO.

Not a bad plan.

> But...if
>that doesn't work, kick him in the balls and send him
>on his way. Or whisper "Zep fans, sheesh!"

An even better plan "B".

> Like I've said, you need to get out more.

>AND it's a pretty blatantly Who-ish store.
>Perhaps I just intimidate them with my steely gaze.

Maybe people don't want to offend you, considering the who-ness of your store.
But, I would have hoped I'd get the same reaction.

>No...but you don't seem like the discussion is much
>fun for you, so it could have been like "THANKS A LOT,
>MARK, FOR MAKING ME DISCUSS IT."

True.

>Perhaps not CRIMINAL ones, but legal
>ones certainly.

There's the distinction.

>Like "Isn't it interesting the way his statements are
>a bit different. Good ol' lovable inconsistant Pete!"

"Interesting" is one way to put it.

>I'm no emoticom expert.

Well, I have a minor in emoticom, and the use of *'s is not part of that study.
Caps is yelling.
*'s is bold for emphasis.
Come on!
We can't all play by different rules!
There would be ....be....anarchy!

>> A rebel without a cause?
>
>I DO have a cause. But I'm not a rebel. No confederate
>flags `round here. Just British ones.

Come on Mark!
A softball if I ever wrote one!
That was an opening for "get Bush out of the whitehouse!"
Asleep at the wheel?

>That's what happens when you look to close to what he
>says.

Why post it if we can't look closely at it?

>Why worry about it? He's a false prophet, at best.

He was bashing IGTC, and "Dominant" listers again, and this time in front of a mass audience, with a very close tie to Pete's ear...namely Matt.
I'll have none of that!
Kevin in VT to the rescue!
Actually, you can thank Scott.
Cousin Akron defended the list quite well.
I simply jumped in to clarify that there was no physical threats made against him, despite his vivid imagination that he felt the need to post.

>But not with the idea in mind that there's something
>amiss. Objectivity!

But, if one is to achieve "objectivity", you *have* to look at all the possibilities.  To ignore any, compromises objectivity.

Look, I'm done.
I appreciate you helping to bat this back and forth.
And, given your disdain for the subject from the very onset back in January, you've shown more patients and class by allowing me to talk it out than those that simply get pissed even at the thought, and accuse of thinking Pete is a Ped. (hmmm, but didn't you do that too?).

I hope all can appreciate that no one here who raised this has had any sort of ill will toward Pete.  There hasn't been any sort of accusation levied here.  There's simply been the desire to discuss this latest statement as it compared to the others.

If that's bad, then at least be glad that no one here has been even *near* as inflammatory or full of "bad intent" as what is seen on some other lists.

For example:

==========
"Despite his awkward denials at downloading Child pornography for self
gratification (He claims it was for research. What praytell would need
to be researched to know that it is bad bad BAD!), Pete Townshend
would at this moment be serving time in a prison if he'd been an
ordinary citizen and not a multimillionaire with friends in high
places.

The very few regulars that continue to support the Registered Sexual
Offender here need to get a few clues. You are supporting a very sick
individual.

One that has given money to see children raped and tortured.

If that makes you feel good to continue your support of this pedophile
- townshend, then maybe you need to look into getting serious help."
==========

A bit of perspective could do us *all* some good.

Kevin in VT