beachflags and why go.

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

>From: Oust_the_pretender <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Is you is or is you ain't a Who fan
>
>"Beach Flags," huh? No, you never told me nor have I ever heard of Beach Flags. Must be a 
>Maryland thing. Thang?

No, a surf lifeguard thing.
It's like musical chairs, where contestants lay on the beach on their stomachs, then at the gun have to jump up, turn around, and then sprint 50 yards and dive after one of the flags in the sand.  There's one less flag than contestants.
Round and round ya go, until there is one.
She had a full page article in the OC Times at the .... time.

>But if something that's going to call itself The Who tours in 2004, then it's not worth even >trying to get it together. Most will go to the tour with their vacation.

So, that would give you the time to join us for a show!
Who cares if it's The Who, or DT, or what.
Come hang with us.
Then, come listen to Pete's new music while we break numerous laws in the venue.
:-)

>>Yeah, but we have to admit they were/are more popular than our boys.
>
>So was Michael Jackson. Your point?

Not at that time.
And, I forget what the point was.
You didn't cut and paste enough from my previous post!

>I don't feel WE are "the masses."

Of course not.  That's why I wrote that.
We know The Who is better than Zep, Stones, Beatles.
The masses don't.

>Aren't we a bit more discriminating in our taste than that?

Of course.

>Are we now expected to compromise because if we don't we're not "loyal Who fans" and we're >"punishing the surviving members?" Sheesh!

What ever they call themselves, don't go for the mountain-top-Who, go for what it is, and to share the moment in Roger and Pete's careers.
That's how I'll be looking at it.

Kevin in VT