Re: 2000 Tour vs 2002 tour - Rock, Paper Scissors

[Joe Lewinski <lewinski@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Allow me some space and I will draw either a
useful or silly analogy.

Pete is the scissors.
Roger is the paper.
John is the rock.

If you've never played the game - Rock, Paper Scissors,
I'll explain.   Two people play opposite each other and count
to three with one hand behind their back.  At the count of five (no - three),
they produce their hand in one of three configurations: Index and Middle
Fingers outstretched (Scissors)   Palm down (Paper),  or Fist  (Rock).

If both players throw the same shape, it is a tie.  If they are different, then
the rankings to determine who wins that round are as follows:

- Scissors cuts Paper.
- Paper covers Rock.
- Rock smashes Scissors.

Play continues until one or both players get's tired or grows up.

IMHO, the personality balance/imbalance within the Who worked
a lot like this game.   The 2002 tour was dominated by Pete.  He
was never threatened by the Smashing Rock of John.   For all of
John's neediness of Pete, I feel John had an independent approach
to things that demanded that Pete and subsequently Roger make
room and concessions for.

At the Camden preshow I met a man named Terry at Hanks.
Terry had a bunch of John photos that he had taken over the years.
He was firmly in the John camp, and  probably would
have been back-stage with John on this tour had
John still been alive.   This really hit me hard as I realized that there
were probably countless people from every city that would have
normally had Who access on this tour if John were still alive.

I'm sure that when you strongly throw your support to one member
and form a friendship you are considered to be one of *their* people.
I am interested to know whether John's people were still welcome
in the camp, or whether they were cut off.

Any thoughts on this?   Alan?

Certainly the game without the Rock is not the same.

Joe in Philly