Re: New Pete diary

["Jim M" <petenotped@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

This went out before I had a chance to refine it a bit.  I wanted to make
sure I phrased it so that I didn't come across as criticizing Kevin, but
rather defending the position of not demanding an apology.  No offense
intended, Kevin, I'm actually very happy that that recent events have helped
you to feel better about the whole thing.  Seriously.

Jim M


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim M" <petenotped@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <thewho@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: Re: New Pete diary


> ----- Original Message ----- From: "O'Neal, Kevin W."
>
> > Because I don't for a moment believe that Pete made the above apology
> because of what Scott,
> > Ken, I, or anyone else has written, I can only sit back content in the
> knowledge that Pete felt this
> > was the right thing to do.  Just like some of us did.
>
> I was never against an apology.  I was against making it a condition of
> giving Pete support.
>
> > Notice how much calmer Pete is?
>
> Among others.
>
> > But I tell ya, strange little development with the law having changed
> after the fact, and Pete being
> > held to it retroactively.  I'm not doubting Pete for a moment, but what
a
> strange twist.