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

In-The-Running Jones And The Lost Cause, Brother Kane and Cousin Able



Let me first say that I heard a rumor yesterday, and
sress that it's only a rumor, but it was that John
Paul Jones was being seriously considered for the
"Who" album and tour. Personally, as I've always
maintained, I think Tony Butler from Big Country is
the ONLY choice that makes sense, it is interesting to
consider what a move like this might do to Page's
Who-hating mentality.

> Or just judge with the evidence we have.

Jon:

Or "Judge not or ye shall be judged." And, to Scott,
I'm not saying "judge only in a positive way" but
instead that to assume the difference in statements is
intentional or somehow sinister is to believe Pete is
guilty of SOMETHING, and that is "judging with bad
intent." And I say if we must judge (I'm NOT), then at
LEAST come from a neutral place.

> Forgive me if I'm starting to realize a feeling of
> deja vu..but hasn't all 
> this been discussed on this list before?

Kane:

It has never stopped. Unfortunately.

> Not Aquaman...Aqualung.  "Eyeing little girls, with
> bad intent."  Sheesh.

Jim M:

Ah, well. I was still in that superhero frame of mind.
And, too, I never pass up a chance to rag on Aquaman.

> Suzanne and Mark, sitting in a tree !!!!

Kevin:

She's right, you know.

> Kind of like dividing the US into places where the
> constitution applies, and doesn't?  You know, the
> "no free speech zones"?

Yeah, can you believe that shit? A fellow SCer was
arrested because he held up a sign protesting the war
in an area where Bush could actually see him and now
faces 6 months in jail as well as a $5k fine. Yeah,
he's a GOOD president. Good like Hitler.

> Dude, I can't believe I have to say this *again*.

Uh oh.

> Is that clear enough?

Yes, but it doesn't address why you then took his
recent diary entry to heart, saying it's inconsistant
and implying that means something...what you haven't
said and what I was ACTUALLY asking you about.

> And, not just to you, but to anyone who has a
> problem with simply looking at the inconsistencies
> and resulting confusion of Pete's statements.

Well, again, I have to ask what you're after when you
do it.

> A troubled man, looking to understand his past?

That is NOT the first thought that leaps to mind for
most people when you question why he went to child
porn sites multiple times after saying he hadn't.

> I've never said he was a Ped.  
> Show me in the archives.
> Anyone.

I didn't say that, but was asking if he's NOT then
what are you saying he IS?

> further for that.  Jeff House seems to feel I was
> down right scary.

Consider the source.

> You obviously have been skimming over my posts
> because you've painted this topic as a "non issue"
> from the very start.

You could be right, at that.

> ??

You asked if he had broken the law, and since we know
he has I asked if merely breaking a different law
automatically meant he had broken the law in THIS
case.

> And, as Alan also pointed out, it could have  *all*
> been avoided had Pete's "Details" been made public
> right at the beginning.

Well, perhaps you both should consider that Pete is a
human being and is not particularly noted for his
correct handling of every situation he's found himself
in. And, frankly, to do otherwise is to assume bad
intent.

> Hey, you yelled first!

Emphasized first.

> But the *issue* has gone on for months.

Only the discussion of it. Not the issue itself.

> Hey, those are the facts.

As seen through a negative filter.

> It doesn't make sense to me.

Clearly.

> And, no one here has even tried to make sense about
> it to me.

Yeah, I have. I said Pete was not known for his
consistancy. You blew that off.

> Why does everyone want to ignore?

Who's ignoring anything? What do you thing Pete is
trying to hide, if he did nothing wrong?

> But everyone is trying to paint me (us) as
> "implying" there is lying.

No, "everyone" is not. Some agree with you. Some
don't. Me, I'm just trying to figure out why this
investigation is so damned important. As they say in
this part of the country: "I'm not fer or agin ya."

> in the world (press, etc.) will draw the same
> conclusion by simply reading Pete's statements.

IF, and I repeat IF you think the news services are
watching his diary. I've seen no evidence of any story
about it on the news.

> And, I don't believe for a second that Pete is
> permitted to make public statements (that we *know*
> the press is reading) about this issue without his
> legal team reviewing them, or even writing.

We know they're reading? How do we know this? Again, I
can find no story about it at all. Surely Brian would
have posted any such story.

> The majority is simply trying to defend ourselves
> from this perception that if you question Pete in
> the least, you accuse him of Pedophilia.

No, not "question in the least." You've turned it
around better than Karl Rove could have (Don't call it
a draft, call it a government sponsored vacation). No,
what I said was if you DO NOT believe Pete's a ped,
then why assume he's lying in his statements just
because they don't agree line for line, especially
when you consider his long history of words not
agreeing with previous statements?

> No.  What, we're not allowed to talk about his legal
> defense strategy, and the potential impact on the
> press, his fans, and ultimately The Who?

What "legal defense?" It's over, Johnny. He's not
facing charges. The press seem to be done with it. We,
his fans, are the only ones I see who are concerned. I
don't know about the other lists, it could just be
this single one. Tempest in a teapot.

> show, I would think that you would be concerned with
> how this effects The Who's and Pete's legacy.
> And, make no mistake, it does.

Well, I AM indeed! Keeping the topic alive isn't
helping their legacies! Letting it die a timely death
(already too late for that, really) would be the best
thing for the legacies.

> How 'bout wigs?

I wouldn't know. Or did you mean Whigs? Given my
political leanings.

> If, you can believe that.

I'm trying.

> The Doctor is in.

Yeah. "In" trouble with the South, which no one will
get to be President without winning. Wait, let me be
more accurate: unless their brother is a governor and
they cheat by suing to stop the vote counting.

=====
Just say Yes to Wes!

        Cheers         Mark Leaman

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree