Re: agree and disagree

["Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Lots of teenage males have that dream too - for fun (and profit). When 
> did he first start touring? 

Gosh, around 1963, I guess.  With the Detours.

> Could it have been addictive?

I'm sure it was.

> But maybe he was tired of the young man life style (or maybe not...), 
> or maybe he wasn't a young man any more... He could have been running 
> from, lets see, maturity, age, responsibility,...mid-life crisis?, 
> obscurity...

Perhaps.  I just feel that there doesn't *always* have to be some deep-
rooted psychological reason for everyone's actions in life.

> hell I don't know, maybe he was as happy as a pig in s$%t.

Like I said, he seemed a fairly happy person.  But, being quiet, & most
comfortable in the background, we sadly never got to know a whole lot
about the man.

> just proposing possibilities that's all

That's cool.  Your opinions are just as valid as mine.  That's why we're
here.  To discuss & present viewpoints.

> Just suggesting possibilities - alternate point of view, that's all.

That's cool.  Your opinions are just as valid as mine.  That's why we're
here.  To discuss & present viewpoints.

> Big jump here - hope you land safely, as I don't think anyone needs to 
> follow my 'way' to be happy - nor should they fit your mould to be 
> 'happy' either.

Point taken.  You stated in your original post that you thought Entwistle,
while seeming happy & content, might have been a troubled man with in-
securities, etc. that manifested themselves in his behavior & way of life.

The reason I reacted the way I did was because of your "Yeah, but he wasn't
fishing with his wife & child" comment.  It sounded to me like you were
insinuating that *you* knew better how he should have lived his life.  I'm
sorry if I misunderstood you.

> In my society, we are all allowed differing opinions without being la-
> belled as "incorrect".

Touche'!  A zinger!

> I didn't know the man, I was just putting forth possibilities.

That's cool.  Your opinions are just as valid as mine.  That's why we're
here.  To discuss & present viewpoints.

> Or was 'the quiet one' the persona that worked, that covered for....

Well, *Moon's* persona was definitely a cover for his insecurities (no
question there).  But I think Entwistle was just Entwistle.  I'm not sure 
he was putting on an act - just playing "the part" of the quiet one.

> I'm just putting forth possibilities that's all

That's cool.  Your opinions are just as valid as mine.  That's why we're
here.  To discuss & present viewpoints.

> By the by here, if you're implying that I need to be told how and what 
> to think, well, certainly not by the likes of you. Try to not meander 
> into the arena of person slags when the topic is about possibilities.

I try to be as delicate with my slags as possible, but you called me on
it, so I'll apologize.  I'm not trying to be mean-spirited; just trying
to have a lively debate.  You're always welcomed to slag me back - if you
feel comfortable doing so.

> I'm just putting forth an opinion - 

That's cool.  Your opinions are just as valid as mine.  That's why we're
here.  To discuss & present viewpoints.

> you must be a good mind reader - and oh so smart - to diagnose me as 
> depressed from these words

I was only kidding, Steve.  Hence the exclamation points.  I know less 
about you than I do about Entwistle!

> (sorry, a personal attack here - sarcasm etc. I apologize)

I wasn't offended.  Or upset.

> Mid 50's, heart problems, I feel safe in saying that he knew he wasn't 
> facing another 30 years of career growth though.

True.  But was he obsessing on his eventual demise, & covering that fact
up by his semi-extravagant lifestyle?  Or was his attitude, "Oh well.
When I die, I die.  Why worry about it?"  I vote for the latter. 

> only your opinion counts?

Of course not!  But I won't know yours unless we hash it out & get to the
nitty-gritty of the discussion.  I *want* to know what you think.  And
*why* you think it.

> I guess we minor little peons have no right to a differing opinion than 
> the one that revolves around the deification of a member of The Who.

Ugh.  Boy, I hope you don't really believe that.  As I stated, I *want*
to hear your opinion.  If I take issue with it, or ask for some clarifi-
cations, or make some stupid sarcastic slag comment, it certainly doesn't
mean you're not allowed to express your opinions & thoughts.  

> Seems to me that you do a better job of imposing your views and judging 
> other people then most everyone else here on the list.

First, I *state* my views, I don't *impose* them.  How could I force any-
one on this list to accept my views?  I may be the most outspoken on the
list, but that hardly means I'm forcing people to accept my opinions.

Second, I reserve the right to judge anyone on this list based on their
comments & views expressed in their posts.  I'm not the type of person
to say, "Yeah!  That's right!  Good point!" in response to every post I
read.  If I read something I don't agree with, I have to speak out.

> Read your own challenges - listen to your own words - try to be a tad 
> more accepting of opinions that vary from yours

Again, I do value your opinions.  They're just as valid as mine.  But I
won't be told to "accept" them just for the sake of politeness.  Your
original post took exception to one of *my* stated opinions!  I responded,
defended my position, & now *you* cry foul & say I should be more accepting
of *your* views?  You surely don't mean that *my* opinions can be attacked 
& called into question, but I should just roll over & "accept" everyone
else's, do you?  

> Try to rephrase your opinions without attacking others - it'd make for 
> a much more interesting debate.

That, I need to work on, you're right.  But please don't discourage my
right to defend my opinions.

And thanks for at least expressing your opinion, Steve.  We need more of
that around here.  Again, your views are always welcomed.  Sorry, if I
pissed you off.


- SCHRADE in Akron