Woke up Free but Branded by his Fans Too?

["Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: "L. Bird"
>Subject: Re: Woke up Free but Branded by his Fans Too?

>Okay, I have just slogged through sixty some messages jammed into my inbox.
Thank you again to Jim for the voice of reason. I suspect that what's going
on here >is something similar to what happens to kids that get into trouble.
The parents' first reaction is relief, and then to really light into the kid
for screwing up. I hope >everyone has blown off the accumulated steam. :)

Yeah, silly me, my emotions have taken the best of me.
Just a bit insulting, don't ya think Keets?

I think it's some of you who can't accept what's happening to Pete and The
Who's reputation here.
I think Pete is suffering from the same thing.

>This was something that's been highly probable all along, and folks have
been hanging on to a slim hope that Pete's credit card was only used to
verify age.

Why,  you ask?????  Because it makes a big difference.  It is a line set by
society.  And, Pete crossed it.

>Next, why does Pete owe his fans an apology? What, exactly, has he done to
the fans? Betrayed their trust? When has he ever asked for it?

Oh ok.  Pete ows no one nothing.
Pete doesn't just owe his fans an apology, he ows all of society an apology.
I personally would feel much better about Pete if he showed some remorse for
his action.

You're right, Pete doesn't owe anyone a god-damn-thing.
That's not the point though.

Your ability to rationalize this all is really astounding.

>Pete has been fairly clear that he's an alcoholic drug addict with serious
emotional issues. In other words, he's a f*ck up, but he always tries to do
better.

Well in my book, I give respect to those who fuck up and apologize or at
least show some sort of remorse for their fuck up, particularly when their
fuck up harms others (giving money to a site harms people, as does simply
viewing the site).
I could care less if Pete gets drunk and falls down in public, or what ever.
That's not what we're talking about.

>On this same subject, Pete has already apologized in a public statement,
though again I forget the details of where and when. (Too many articles to
keep up with.)

HE HAS NOT!  He has only stated that he was wrong for going to the site and
accepts his punishment.  But then he continues to deny blame.

>Forget the abject apologies; they will only make him look weak and whiny.

Oh bull shit.  They will make him look passionate.  They would make him seem
regretful and accepting of the gravity of the situation.  It would start the
healing process.

>His statement to the press struck the right note--coming out against child
porn. The post on his website was a more intimate request for understanding,
and look at >the response. Tsk, tsk. ;)

Pete walks on water too, right Keets?

>This is something Pete will have to deal with in interviews from now on. I
don't know his reasons for accessing the site, but if they're strong ones,
I'd be tempted >to say he should stick to his guns and insist that (though
it was morally wrong) he felt he was justified in seeking after this as one
of life's great truths. On camera, >this should be stated with some emotion,
and followed by a tirade against VISA and MasterCard (plus other economic
interests) and the attitudes that prevent >actually fighting against the
problem.

If Pete doesn't state clearly how sorry he is for paying money to a site,
and how wrong it was, all the other explanations in the world will fall on
deaf ears.  In fact, he will be doing more harm to himself.

>Now, about what he actually paid for: As I understand the description of
the site, it was a gateway. In other words, it was set up like a shopping
mall. There was >an entry fee to get in the door, and then lots of little
shops set up inside with porn for sale. Pete said that he used his credit
card to get in, but only looked at the >sites/shops from the outside and
didn't pay to download anything. So, Pete has paid the owner of the mall,
but has not paid any of the pornographers.

I guess Pete didn't inhale either.

Come on Keets!  Pete paid to view photo's of babies being raped.  He did
this *AFTER* having previously seen these sorts of photos in the past.

>This is a quibble, but it's questionable whether you can connect this
payment directly with encouraging demand for child porn.

Bull....shit.

>This kind of arrangement is fairly common on the Internet, and Yahoo has a
ton of shops. Would paying Yahoo a fee to look at a groups of exclusive
shops be >the same as supporting the shops? Maybe. Will any of them get
money from the entry fee. No.

Wow.
I guess if you try hard enough, one can rationalize anything.

I've loved Pete for a long time.
What I've loved most about him is his honesty and integrity.
I'm not seeing that at the moment, and that's what is hurting.
I WILL NOT blindly respect a person, nor will I dig to come up with
rationalizations to cover up facts and actions.
Pete wouldn't want that.


Lool people, these are my opinions.
Take them or leave them, I don't give a rats ass.
But stop attacking them like you hold a chance at changing my mind or prove
my opinions wrong.
If you have an opinion on this, simply state it without replying to mine,
putting me on the defensive.

Kevin in VT