Re: The Who Mailing List Digest V10 #15

[john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Wet detective pinky, Teflon, Bummed

>Joe, re

>> When the detective dips his wet pinky in
>> the  bag of white powder to check
>> the purity of the coke, what taste is he looking for, and how does he come
>> to know this without breaking a law himself?

>You've been watching too much tv.

John: 

It's "tele" where you live, right?   I did watch a fair amount
in the 70s and 80s.  Maybe they recently stopped doing this.

>NO detective risks poisoning himself 
>doing this.

>It might also lead to a defence claim that 
>the detective opened the bag and 
>inserted whatever white powder himself.

Oh so it's the guy in the lab that tastes it to see if it
was tainted by the Detective, or if it is pure.  I see.
I also see that you got my point.  ;)

Thanks for keeping it light.  You must be fan of the uncertainty
principle by Heisenberg.

Everyone:

Pete's openness is hopefully going to save his hide.  He has
a certain teflon quality about him.  

I'm a little bummed out about some of the posts I see that are
not fully behind Pete. 

I'm not totally naive as to think that there is no possibility
of him breaking the law.  Clearly the
moral problem at the center of this controversy is exploitation
of children or "child abuse".  It would seem that the law 
that Pete allegedly broke is not morally transferable to child
abuse - as an active participant on the production side, 
or as an addicted voyeur contributing to the demand side of 
the problem.

To everyone that acted on Pete's behalf to rebalance the court
of public opinion:  Nice work!   The candles that this man lit
in all of us still burn strongly.

Joe in Philly