[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Monsters and Gods



From: "Kevin O'Neal" <kevinandt@xxxxxxxxx>

and then flipped me the fucking bird
for pointing it out.  What was that?  A bi-polar moment?

I'm guessing she proably didn't like you making up condescending nicknames for her. Weren't you trying to piss her off? I assumed you were.


KO: You are now officially dubbed "Flounder".
SM: Is that too wishy washy?  <flipping Kevin the bird>

I think you also were incredibly insensitive to use the sentence where she reveals having been abused as an opportunity to make a juvenile joke. Not that I don't like juvenile jokes, but, as the acne sufferer once said, you've got to pick your spots. (see)

What a shock that she might want to flip you off right about now! She must be bipolar! Uh, huh.

So, let's just accept, like the rest of the world, that he
did....something.....wrong.

Agreed. We can't pretend he didn't.


>WILL THIS THREAD NEVER BE RESOLVED????

IT MIGHT NOT!
I find it more interesting and relevant though than startrek, religion,
personal tragedy stories, or even politics and the economy, to be honest.

Or Sting Theory.


>I say examine fine but don't
>assume bad intent. I've yet to see that, I'm afraid.

Where is all this bad intent??

That's how it comes across to me, too, when people try to pick apart comments looking to discover technical inconsistencies that might indicate Pete's lying. I think that's the "bad intent" AquaLeaman was talking about. I'm sure this ordeal has been even more of an education into the world of internet pornography than Pete expected. Lot's of terms like entering, accesing, portals, listing sites... It wouldn't surprise me at all to find out that he had used some of them incorrectly, especially in his earlier statements. Now, if we were talking about inconsistencies like "I never paid for access to child porn" then "I paid $5 once, but only went in once" and "Did I say $5? I meant $50." But, we haven't had those kind of inconsistencies. He said he paid once, from the beginning, and that story has held water to a very high degree. So, I was more interested to learn that the sum we were talking about was only $5 (I had assumed it was several times that) than in trying to see if he had accounted for each of his handful of encounters in exactly the same way, in every one of his statements.


> He was
>certainly a better guitarist, but most of his "sound"
>came from The Who anyway. Pete was using feedback at
>least as far back as 1964. Mitch Mitchell is a Moon
>wannabe for sure.

Yeah, but Brian Wilson wasn't nearly the guitarist, or performer that Pete
was/is.

You guys need to go back and re-read the question. It was more about the man than his specific talents or achievements. Remember the "artist" and "tortured soul?" Most of those guys don't have nearly the violent, street-fighter side that Pete does. He's certainly unique, but I've enjoyed the talk about who's got the *most* in common with him.


Jim M

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search... http://shopping.msn.com