Standing tall and what to call.

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

From: SicilianMother@xxxxxxx
Subject: Much needed clarification

3rd, Kevin is the one who brought up Marks name and made it personal.

Na uh.
:-p

>I was just posting my thoughts

Mistake #1.
Doh!  ;-o

>Kevin, you made 
>it seem that way.  Bad boy.

Na uh.

>ORIGINAL POST:

Come on Jo,
You posted it, now stand by it.
Your post was pointed at *anyone* who didn't want to attend.
Who gives a .....Rat Bastard....if it's Mark or someone else??
Can't stand the heat......

>From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Those Rat Bastards
>
>He was happy having his last live Who experience
>being the Atlanta 2000 show. (Most likely because that's where he met me.
>How can anything be more special than that?)

Cack.
Choke.
Call 911!

>Daltrey & Townshend?  Sure.  Why not?  Here, IMO, we have the first example
>of a fragmented grouping that could still get away with calling themselves
>The Who.  Those two are the core members (whatever that means).  The brains
>& the voice.  At least that's the way I see it.

The obvious question then is why Plant and Page don't call themselves Led Zep?
Or, why Jagger and Richards don't call themselves The Stones (CFNYC)?

But, it's a strange thing.
I mean, it *was* The Who with John and Zak, and Zak is still there.
So, really, we've only lost one band member using the above logic.

I dunno.

This will also be different in that there will be a studio album, forcing the issue of crediting the other members of "the band".
Will the cover just have Roger and Pete?
Will they incorporate Zak and ? on bass into the band?

We'll see, I guess.

Kevin in VT