Band Photos



Marcus Surrealius bushchoked at yahoo.com
Fri Aug 6 13:53:53 CDT 2004


> I think of ML as one.

David:

I'm one. I AM ONE. And I can see...

Does that mean the "yoke's on me?" (sorry, couldn't
resist)

> But not alone. There are many. Many fans are
expecting The Who of 1971-74 to be the final moment of
truth for the band.

Actually I'd put it 1965-1973. Personally.

> I of course took this as encouraging news that he's
not done with all this
yet. We'll see. 

I think he needs to move on, though. Existing in the
past, reworking past glories, is not what I expect
from Pete Townshend.

> Well, he wasn't addressing me directly.

Kevin:

I was speaking in general.

> I wasn't involved.

And it was part of what I was saying, which shows I
was speaking in general.

> I *am* being even handed.
I'm addressing the person who addressed me.

And I was addressing the issue.

> I'm simply defending myself.

For what? What defense do you need?

> Did I criticize your post or anyone else's?

I wouldn't call "yawn" a criticism. You're not THAT
sensitive, are you?

> I know that.

Then why did you feel you had to defend yourself????

> But, you got some ire.

Not about this.

> Well, maybe we replace ire with Who
list-frustration.

OK, I can dig that.

> Ouch.  Is Scott even here to defend himself?  ;-)

Defend from what?

> I've never known you to try and dissuade people from
expressing excitement about upcoming shows.

I haven't, nor am I now. I'm just pointing out that
it's completely without substance as a discussion. And
I think you'll agree with that. It matters ONLY to the
few people here who are going. So if a few of us who
discuss Pete's political leanings are to be
criticized, why not the reverse? I mean, THAT is as
evenhanded as it gets. THAT is why I said anything.
It's so damned hypocritical, and at LEAST our
discussion had substance.

> But, I ....and I think the rest of us understand
why.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

> Talk about "yawwwn".  And, you're wrong.

I'd rather not be a witness to the band's
disintegration, compromises. I remember when they
soared among the eagles.

> You're missing some impressive musicians playing
some impressive music at an
impressively professional level.

I've seen cover bands before, with better musicians
than the original band.

> Damn, how powerful of a microscope did you use to
split *that* fine hair.

That's just how it IS.

> So, you'll listen to a new album even if it's called
a Who album?
<GASP!>
Where are your ethics???

I'm weak on ONE POINT...sheesh...

> Townshend is playing some of the best guitar of his
career.

I agree.

> He's physically and mentally in the best shape of
his life.

I don't know about THAT, though. I'd say post-Tommy.

> It would be stupid to end it now.

It's ENDED already. It's not in HIS hands. Now he can
admit it, or deny it.

> But, he can't get the sort of "play" he can with his
mates that make up Who2.
And, Who2 can't get the sort of "play" they can
without the use of the name "The Who."

Excuses...there's a million of them. 

> Don't be left behind.

No worries there. I'm usually well ahead of the game.

> Making derogatory comments against, or complaining
about Who-related posts discourages future posting.
Simple.

You mean...doing what others have done to me, which
apparently was OK but this isn't?

I see.

> I've seen 'em start it and then turn around and
blame the one trying to get
back on subject.

Yep.

> Pardon me for taking issue with it, and defending
what I post about.

You are forgiven. (..."you are for----given...")
Look, I was merely making a point.

> What, did you expect me to say "yeah, you're right, 

That would have been cool.

> You and Tom have a beef with Paul.

*I* don't.

> Wha'd *I* do??

You posted to the list. Stop feeling so used. It
wasn't anything personal, already.

> Oh please. You calling me Bush?

Are you qualifying my posts?

> It seemed too good to be true.

It seemed too much work for Pete to concentrate on for
that long a period.

> My anger was addressed for the general 
course of things, not specifically about you or your
writings.

Tom:

WHY do we even have to explain THAT? I read you loud
and clear.


"I stand before you only because almighty God saw our
boat safely through those rivers of death and
destruction by giving us a brave, wise and decisive
leader named John Kerry."
           Rev. David Alston
    

=====
Cheers         ML


		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 




More information about the TheWho mailing list