Re: Deconstructing Pete & Single Man Dilemma/Blues

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

	>From: Oust_the_pretender 
	>Subject: Re: Deconstructing Pete & Single Man Dilemma/Blues 
>
>Kevin:
>
>I was in a hurry.

My life these days.

>Deconstructing Pete? Didn't I use
>that one already?

I dunno.

>There is no longer a Who for me to be anti-continuing
>about...I think...what were we talking about?

Still you...how did ya put it..."deconstructing" Pete by protesting his decision to continue as The Who.
Shame on you!

>That was the end! Don't you know an end when you see
>one?

I know a nice ass when I see one.  Does that count?

>It's like an end table, only there's no table.
>See?

No.  There's no end table.  There's a table on wheels that Pete keeps rolling back into the room for us to put more drinks on.
(?)

>But it's true! Occum's Razor, right Scott?

I'll have to revert to what my legal council, Mr. Schrade, has already posted on the matter.

>I believe Pete doesn't sit and consider all of those
>things when he writes. I mean, obviously when you
>think about what he's written.

In this case, a very public and already damaging case, he darn well should (if he isn't) be.

>I never said that, but I am also entitled
>to register my opinion that none of this is relevent
>and it never fucking ends.

Your entitlement to register your opinion was revoked months ago, I thought.
Who let you off your leash??

>It keeps getting brought up
>for the slightest reason.

New Pete Statement = slightest reason?
Survey Says??!!!!
XXX

>I'm just tired of it.

Yeah, me too.
Really.

>I don't think he's a pedophile, no matter how bleeding
>many times he visited sites.

I don't, nor ever have either.
But, I did think he was working through past demons.
I hold no negative opinion on that.

>I don't care if his words
>don't completely agree with every little thing he's
>said in the past...that is hardly newsworthy.

Again, I'll revert to what my legal council has already posted.
 
>Yet the
>discussion about how he might be after all but maybe
>not, as such, goes on and on and on and never ends
>like the Bush economy...

GDP up 7.2%.

>No, I'm sure he wants us to put his every statement
>under a microscope and look for evidence he's hiding
>something.

I dunno if we're looking for evidence that he's hiding something.
I'm looking to understand the man.
If *we* can't understand him, then it's all hopeless anyway.

>I thought you said Pete was God? Maybe we're all God.
>Thou Art God. Have a familiar ring?

I'm not sure how to respond.
My legal council tells me there's no such thing as God, but instead these tiny string (not Sting) cheese things that are so small that we can't see them.

It's all so confusing.
What were we talking about again?

Kevin in VT