[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Let Pete be Pete



From: "Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@surfglobal.net>
"...but to suggest that Pete isn't grieving over John is ludicrisp (not to be confused with Super Sugar Crisp).
Why should Pete be contrived? Why do we expect "proper" behavior from a not so proper gent."

I'm not so sure I undertand the word choice here, but I do get the jism of what you're saying.

To elaborate further...Why question Pete's character when he is a party to a decision that you (John K) don't like? Why not critique the action you find objectionable in a rational way? I know from 1st hand experience that it is difficult to do this while angry, but would you mind trying? I really would like to hear your position.

Tossing out one word insults at Pete makes it difficult for the reader to understand your position. Why not rip Roger or Curbishley or John's son or his Mum or Clear Channel with similar insults?

I wouldn't deny anyone the right to disagree with the band's actions. I think Magik's arguments were rational and very well stated. I was happy to read his views on these matters.

I invite John K to elaborate on his grievances toward Pete but if you are going to call someone names, at least do us the favor of giving a full explanation of the insults.

Jeff

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com