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

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

>From: Oust_the_pretender
>Subject: In-The-Running Jones And The Lost Cause, Brother Kane and Cousin
Able

>Paul Jones was being seriously considered for the
>"Who" album and tour.

Yawn.  I've never been impressed with JPJ.

>Kevin:
>
>She's right, you know.

Only because instead of discussing it, we're forced to spend all our time
defending ourselves from people trying to convince us that we think Pete is
a Ped.
Actually, *you're* the only one that is actually allowing an exchange of
ideas.  I do appreciate that.

>Yeah, can you believe that shit?

Yes.  Yes, I can.

>Yes, but it doesn't address why you then took his
>recent diary entry to heart,

Because I don't believe Pete would haphazardly make a statement on his web
about this situation.
It was thought out, considered, and then posted.
And, it paints a completely different picture than his initial and
subsequent statements.

>saying it's inconsistent
>and implying that means something

I haven't implied anything.  I've only stated it's inconsistent.
But, who knows, maybe it means something.
Are we not allowed to wonder?  To ask?  To consider?

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

What do you think?
Understanding.
Sense.

>> 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.

Going by Pete's original statements, that should be the *only* conclusion.

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

Didn't I just answer that?  A troubled man, trying to understand his past.
Thus, research for his autobiography,.....as he originally stated.

>Consider the source.

Yes, but it still angers me to be portrayed like that.
The gloves came off, then.

>You asked if he had broken the law, and since we know
>he has

Pete still is intent on making the point that he hasn't.

>I asked if merely breaking a different law
>automatically meant he had broken the law in THIS
>case.

What?
No, of course breaking one unrelated law doesn't mean you break this law.
What?

>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.

So, then, you're saying that his initial statements were made in haste, and
were not completely accurate?
He *wasn't* doing research for his autobiography?

>And, frankly, to do otherwise is to assume bad
>intent.

That's bullshit, Mark.
Really.

There are two stories.
You, above, admit that there are inconsistencies, and that Pete is known for
that.
How is it an assumption of bad intent to try and figure out which story is
the correct one?
Or, are you saying they are both wrong, and we'll just never really know
what the f happened.

If we try and figure out (and we do, a bunch) which is the true story
regarding his hearing loss, are we assuming bad intent?

>> Hey, you yelled first!
>
>Emphasized first.

Caps are yelling.  Bold is emphasis.
Since bold doesn't come through on the list, folk use * xxx * for emphasis.
Come on, get with the program.

>Only the discussion of it. Not the issue itself.

The discussion was dead for several months there, until Pete posted about
the issue.
Plus, I believe there is still legal movement regarding being on the sex
offenders list, etc.

>> Hey, those are the facts.
>
>As seen through a negative filter.

Not.
Please.
You're the one who took the stand that this whole issue was a non-issue.
Pete Townshend depicted by the media as a pedophile, and placed on the UK
sex offenders registry is a non issue.
O.K.

>> 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.

Because your statement is the biggest "blow off".
You're basically saying, "who knows what Pete's saying, we shouldn't listen
because what comes out of his mouth is always inconsistent, so it's never
right. Let's give up."

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

I've never said Pete did nothing wrong.
That's others.
There's issues at play other than the "is Pete a pedophile".  There's legal
issues.  There's reputation issues.  There's legacy issues.

>> But everyone is trying to paint me (us) as
>> "implying" there is lying.
>
>No, "everyone" is not.

Ok, just you then.

>Me, I'm just trying to figure out why this
>investigation is so damned important.

Coming from the point of view that 'what comes out of Pete's mouth is
inconsistent, and thus not worth listening to because it's not going to be
correct', I can see why you feel it's *not* important.
But, my point of view is that 'when Pete talks, particularly about this
case, he's dead-balls serious.'
I don't believe he's just saying stuff for shits and giggles.
Whether you want to admit it or not, this situation has been an incredibly
traumatic experience for Pete.....So, obviously, it's been a big issue for
Pete.
I want to be there for Pete.
But, first, I want to understand him.
I don't feel comfortable just going 'I'm there for ya Pete, no matter what
you do or say'.
I'd like to understand.
That's called having a relationship.  If ya don't understand, then what's
the point?

>IF, and I repeat IF you think the news services are
>watching his diary.

They clearly are.
There were several articles that published Pete's last statement.
Even more that published his previous statements in his diary.
And, even more that published his Rolling Stone exclusive.

>I've seen no evidence of any story
>about it on the news.

Well, no, not on CNN.
But, there have clearly been press that have picked up on even Pete's last
statement.

>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.

Mark, you've been gone.
Brian is no longer posting news stories here.
He posts them on who.net/news.
Why do you think I've been bringing who.net/news stories here?
And, while on that subject.....I could use some help!

>No, what I said was if you DO NOT believe Pete's a ped,
>then why assume he's lying in his statements

Again, I'm not assuming he's lying.
ARrrrrrgh!
And, there's more going on then believing if Pete is a ped or not.

Maybe his lawyer found this good tactic and has now altered the story to
paint a better picture for Pete.
It could be technically correct, but the way it's now told, just makes Pete
look better in the eyes of all.
I don't know!??
But, that's the point....to try and figure it out.

> just
>because they don't agree line for line, especially
>when you consider his long history of words not
>agreeing with previous statements?

Line for line?
Sorry.
It's all different.
Doing research for autobiography vs. for a list to heighten awareness of
sites.
Visiting sites repeatedly ("3 or 4 times") vs. looking at a list.

I'm sure there's more.
Where the hell is our resident historian, Ken????

>What "legal defense?" It's over, Johnny. He's not
>facing charges.

Bad use of words.  Legal wrangling?
I'm not convinced that Pete's team is just accepting being placed on the sex
offenders registry.
Remember what the spokswoman for Pheonix Survivors said?
"There was much going on behind the scene to get Pete removed from that
list." (paraphrased quote, there)
I think I'll write her to see if she has anymore information.

>The press seem to be done with it.

Not all.

>We, his fans, are the only ones I see who are concerned.

Thank god.

>I don't know about the other lists, it could just be
>this single one. Tempest in a teapot.

Not.  Pete's last statement was made because of continued chat on his own
board.
In fact, Matt has stated that some posts have not been permitted to go live.
And, he stated that regarding calling Pete a pedophile.
So, there's obviously much talk going on, and it's not all pretty.
And, I'd dare to say that if someone was going to post on Pete's board that
he's a pedophile, they're likely not a fan of his.

You need to get out more.

>Well, I AM indeed! Keeping the topic alive isn't
>helping their legacies!

Look, here's what sucks....
Pete makes a statement, and everyone (whoops..), and most jump for joy
without really even considering the whole picture.
This list, a Who list, and dare I say one of the best Who lists, has been so
against even talking about this, that I don't feel comfortable voicing my
concerns, concerns that others share.
Thanks to Scott for not giving a shit, and stepping up to the plate to state
what he was thinking....because I was thinking it too.
What, we're supposed to just sit here and not mention..."umm, hello, the
statements are inconsistent." ?

 >Letting it die a timely death
>(already too late for that, really) would be the best
>thing for the legacies.

We just raised some concerns.
What continues is this "why are you implying he's lying?  why are you
implying he's a pedophile?"

Alan raises a great point, one that I've also raised.
If Pete's statements, or even his lawyers statements had been what this last
diary entry was, Pete would have been seen as a hero, not a "yeah right, he
was doing research for his autobiography...wink-wink....nudge-nudge."

At the very least, our conclusion should be that this is yet another example
of bad management by Pete's law team, spokespersons, and Who management.
What, is that a sin to say *that*?

Oh, and here's a question........
What is so wrong about looking at a situation from the most cynical
perspective, and from the most innocent perspective?
Do I lose my membership to the list?
I tend to consider all angles.  My thoughts encompass the most sinister
views, and the most pure.
Life somehow finds itself somewhere in the middle....most of the time.

How's that Akron song go again?

"You are gonna take it!
You are gonna take it!
Always did & always will!
You need some religion,
And as far as I can tell,
You are gonna take it!
Always did & always will!
You are gonna take it!
You can't shake it.
You can't break it.
Just accept it better still."

Ok.
I'm bending over and holding onto my ankles.

Kevin in VT