Moore lies you wish
bushchoked at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 9 09:03:07 CDT 2004
> Uh, you lost me there. What does giving your kids
weird names have to do
with the way Pete is carrying on with the band?
Both show a lack of long term consideration. It was a
humorous way of making my point.
> What are the repercussions of using the name of the
original line up of a
Well, for one you lose credibility. There was a time
when there were multiple versions of the band The
Drifters, to the point where two would be playing in
the same town. Oranagejello and the Original Drifters.
Lemonjello and the Original Drifters. Even now there
are many "bands" with one or two original members who
are calling themselves the entire band. It's
The Who were always a band with integrity, one you
wouldn't expect to be Pete Townshend and the Original
Who. But that's what it looks like now.
Degrading your band's already tarnished repuation is
You may like the band as a laughing stock, but I
don't. I don't enjoy spreading the word about the band
to have deal with bullshit that could have been (and
would have been) avoided with a little aforethought.
> As for naming a song with an odd double entnendre'
on an event not related
to the subject matter of the song, that's having the
artistic balls to not
With a incident which will haunt him for the rest of
his career? It's not like he was caught with a 20
year-old hot model (female or male). It's pedophilia.
Best not to beg the question after the question has
been settled. That's BAD JUDGEMENT.
> let a witch hunt dictate your creation.
It's called understanding the repercussions of your
> may be more of a story here, but the existing legacy
outweighs this semantic blip.
Yeah, that's why people still think he's gay after 25
years and who knows how many women.
> judgement is a bit
haughty and is based more on your expectations than
YES, The Who gave me those expectations. That's why
they were the greatest Rock band to ever walk the face
of the Earth. You can call it "haughty" if you like,
but it doesn't apply.
> And I didn't know the South had the market cornered
on weird names.
> Watch it.
> Ironic that Moore seems to be employing a generous
amount of deliberate deceit in his attempts to pin the
"liar" label on the Bush administration
Ironic that nitpicking like this: "The premature calls
may have cost Bush thousands of votes from the
conservative panhandle" when the calls happened a mere
10 minutes before the polls closed is being called
"deliberate deceit" by anyone. What, is this a
contention that someone was sitting at home and saw
that on TV, and therefore didn't go to the poll? They
were apparently headed out of the door at that very
moment, is that it? I mean, that's just ridiculous!
The next point is that a CNN clip shown is a lie,
because the truth was the opposite...when in fact the
study sited showed that had the ballots been counted
according to the way the Bush lawyers wanted, Gore
would have won (and vice versa). Instead it says this
lie: "Even if the Supreme Court had not stopped a
statewide recount, or if a more limited recount of
four heavily Democratic counties had taken place, Bush
still would have won Florida and the election." That
is a blatant and unmitigated LIE.
The third point says the people denied their vote was
not race based, however it was NAME based (people with
names similar to those who were legally denied the
vote) and that trends toward race in most cases. So
much for the integrity of the opposition.
And so on. The entire "argument" goes on as
"accurately." So the site twiced cited here is as
deceptive as it claims the Moore movie is. Beware
believing what you want to believe, because sometimes
that's not where the truth is found.
"I have a different vision of leadership. A leadership
is someone who brings people together."
George "divider not a uniter" Bush
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
More information about the TheWho