IOW, God, and Roger. (??)

O'Neal, Kevin W. Kevin.ONeal at
Mon Jul 19 11:47:01 CDT 2004

>From: "Jim M" <petenotped at>
>Subject: Why Jim *still* hasn't seen IOW
>You know the thing is, if you don't belong to an internet list like
this, you can quite easily be completely unaware of 
>what The Who are doing.

Such great management of The Who.

>It's a sorry tale, but it's mine.  Truth is, without 911 and without
Pete's arrest, I'm probably very happy playing my old >Who CDs from time
to time and more or less oblivious to what they're doing now.

I'm sure many of our stories are the same.
I can't remember how I found out about the Quad Tour.
I believe Stu in MD found an article or something.
But, yeah, the net really opened the doors.
After Quad, I was on the web researching.
My main motivation was to get boots...specifically IOW.

>From: "L. Bird" <pkeets at>
>Subject: RE: That big wheel
>The reason for using metaphor is to invoke extra meanings.

I'm not in kindergarten!  ;-)

>Pete could have 
>just said "time is passing" and "lucky guys and gals." 


>"Angels" corresponds with his 
>later mention of God.

Survey *says*????

Not really, and now you're really stretching.
You could say the mention of an animal relates to bestiality.
You could say the mention of food relates to bulimia.
Think how often the word Angel is used in rock.
And I can't think of a one that really is trying to get spiritual.
It's a way of saying a chick is really hot.
It's flowery, but doesn't necessarily mean Pete is trying to say that by
running with the 'in-crowd' he's giving credit to God.
Hell, he should probably give credit to the drugs he was taking at the

It's a stretch to then say there is a spiritual meaning in there.
Could be, but most usually is just what it is.

>What I'm arguing is that these extra meaning are what 
>give the songs a spiritual quality.

Not always.

>If you want to talk about the quality of his metaphoric choices, that's

>something else. 

No thanks.
Just saying that you can think yourself in circles and way too deeply if
you only slightly try.

>From: David Huntington <huntington at>
>Subject: Re: The Who Mailing List Digest, V11 #188
>>David Huntington is Roger!!!!!!!!
>LOL. Crank up Quad, give me a few beers and a microphone prop and much
to the chagrin of those around me, even I'll start >to believe this.

Careful.  If you do, the room will clear out as fast as when I state
that "I am Pete."
Why won't they believe me????

>Roger is The Who's biggest fan.

He really is.
We owe him much for the activity over the past 8 years.

>To bad for him he's never been able to see the band from that vantage

That is a wild thing.
I've noticed him even complain about that very thing lately.
"Don't forget, I've never seen The Who live."  RD

Can't say I wouldn't trade places with him though.

Kevin in VT

Confidentiality Notice:
This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.

More information about the TheWho mailing list