The never ending, always pending, can't die, won't let it lie, continuos, contentious, says you, says me, Ah Ha!, not so,want to know, don't want to know, you're moms a ho, Pedophile discussion.

["O'Neal, Kevin W." <Kevin.ONeal@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

	From: Oust_the_pretender 
	Subject: Re: ped discussion that never ends 

>> I'm not now!  Not with people coming up to me and
>
>Scott:
>
>I have to ask...how much is this really happening?

To my dismay, this very am, it happened.  First time in several weeks, but...
A not so pleasant Monday morning present.

I'm dropping off my boy at daycare, and in comes the dad of the other boy that usually doesn't show up until after I'm already at work.
A nice guy, about my age (the dad, not the kid).  He parked behind me and noticed my SLIPKID plate, and WHO sticker.
So, he asks..."You must be a Who fan."
I kind of smiled and said "ohhhh, yeah."

Dude:  "Yeah, I've always liked The Who."

Me: "How can one not.  They're awesome."  (Ok, not exactly the most stellar response, but I'm bleeding dead tired at 7:15 on a Monday after a hard weekend of non-stop physical labor.)

Dude: "It must have sucked hearing that Pete Townshend is a pedophile."

Me: <eyes popping wide open, and not believing I'm hearing this just a day after Mark asks how much this is really happening.> "Well, don't believe everything you hear.  You *do* know that he's not being charged with anything, right?"

Dude: "No, I hadn't heard that.  His fame probably got him a sweet deal <he states light heartedly>."

Me: <still thinking of Mark's post> "Do you really believe that?  Do you really believe he's a pedophile?"

Dude: "I dunno.  He was caught checking out child-porn web sites, though."

I started to go down the "yeah, but he was doing research..." road, but couldn't.
I, instead, said something about "there's more to it than what was in the press." and decided to enjoy the last few moments with my boy.  We went and read a book.

>I have yet to meet a single person who's
>seriously believed Pete is a pedophile.

Like I've said, you need to get out more.

>> Yawn.  I've never been impressed with JPJ.
>
>Kevin:
>
>So you'd rather have Pino?

Did I say that?
No, I wouldn't rather have Pino.
JPJ will be ok, if for no other reason than it's a member of LZ playing for The Who, a distinction I'm glad to say isn't reversed.

>I was just
>thinking of my theory concerning what I see as Page's
>deep envy of The Who, and how he failed to get Moon &
>Entwistle for Zep but Pete might get JPJ for The Who.

Ironic, isn't it?
That's the plus side I'm seeing too.

>Well...gee, thanks.

That was a compliment, Mark.
Is it that bad to discuss something a friend finds important?

>> Because I don't believe Pete would haphazardly make
>> a statement on his web about this situation.
>
>But he has done this sort of haphazard thing his
>entire career, and as far as I can see that's
>explanation enough right there.

Really.  Name me one other time Pete has made haphazard statements regarding anything in the Who's career that had legal implications.
The only time I can think of is around the Cincinnati deaths, and The Who was pretty succinct about all of that.

>I hate to quote from a Speilberg movie, but that DOES
>imply "This means something."

So what.

>Sure, I just wish it was more neutral. Not so "Ah HA!"

Tell me then, how do you raise it in a more neutral way?
Since we are so "Ah Ha-ish", how does one raise the fact without being "Ah Ha!" ?

>All these things are covered if one believes as I do
>that Pete is simply inconsistent by nature.

Yeah, dumb ol' Pete.

>And that's an indication of
>something not so innocent. Maybe evidence that he was
>lying with the first statement? See where this goes?

Yeah, and we wouldn't want to figure that out, if true.
I know where to put the cork.

>> Since bold doesn't come through on the list, folk
>> use * xxx * for emphasis.
>
>But you know I never, ever use emoticons of any sort.
>This is an emoticom-free zone, right here.

Then suffer from being misunderstood at times.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't beleive *xx*'s are emoticom's.
I thought those were only the little faces....like....  ;-p

>> Come on, get with the program.
>
>No, I chose to remain a rugged individual.

A rebel without a cause?

>BARELY. I don't see how he can do anything about that.

I don't either, but who knows.

>I'm starting to get a headache. You know what I
>mean!!!!

Yes!!!!

>> But, there have clearly been press that have picked
>> up on even Pete's last
>> statement.
>
>I can't find one with Google.

I'm not making it up.

>> Brian is no longer posting news stories here.
>
>He posted one just the other day.

I was surprised by that too.
I guess Brian posts some that he feels are especially news worthy.

I'm not making this up either.

>Whatever you call it. It has to be intentional if he's
>not merely inconsistent as usual. One of the other,
>right?

Right.

>> Maybe his lawyer found this good tactic and has now
>> altered the story to
>> paint a better picture for Pete.
>
>Then that's a bad thing. IMHO. If that's true, then
>there's something bad in the mix. Deceit.

Yes.  That's one possible conclusion.

>> Doing research for autobiography vs. for a list to
>> heighten awareness of sites.
>
>Doing both at the same time? Multitasking?

That's clearly not what he's saying now.

>> Visiting sites repeatedly ("3 or 4 times") vs.
>> looking at a list.
>
>Was it "sites" or "portals?" He paid once, that would
>be the only site visit, yes?

I'm no longer sure.
I really should pull Ken's time-line, and re-read.
There are so many facts, bits of information, it's becoming difficult to keep track of them all accurately.

>No I don't. I am too busy surviving this Bush economy
>to be on more than one list. 

Me too.
I only went there because I was alerted of Mr. House spreading his gospel of lies.

>You shouldn't feel uncomfortable about it, but does
>that mean those of us who are dog tired of the subject
>cannot also say so?

No. Of course not.

>> 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."
>
>Making the huge assumption they would have believed
>it. I don't think they would.

Looking at a list of sites, is a vastly different thing than actually looking at the sites themselves, which is the impression Pete left with his original statements.  An impression that was clearly communicated by the press, and folk like my son's day care buddy's dad.

>I don't find Pete's actions
>here heroic in any way. More like foolish and
>short-sighted.

Can't argue with that.

>I would hope not, but it's not the proper way to
>conduct an investigation. I'm sure you'd agree with that.

Actually, I don't.
An investigation (if that's what we're calling this.  Not my words) must look at all the possibilities.

Kevin in VT

The Doctor is in!