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

Re: The Never-ending story



> I'd estimate that I get a Pete pedo-comment about
> once a month.

Scott:

Amazing. That's a lot more than I ever got. Are they
from the same people over and over?

> the wisecrack from a complete stranger seeing me in
> Who garb.

Kick him in the balls and send him on his way.

> This would do it for me.  I *hope* that it's true. 
> They could use another 
> brilliant musician in the band. And,  he's my
> favorite bass player. Much bottom. 

Jon:

He's actually a better guitarist than bassist.

> Zak greatly.  Three of my favorite 5 groups would be
> represented on stage. 

Let's just hope they don't call it The Who.

> Would do wonders for the album.  He ain't no joke.

But he doesn't sound remotely like John. There's
thousands of great bassists out there. But for The
Who, none who can even come close to Entwistle.

> And maybe, after they get John Paul Jones in the
> band, the could get
> *Kenney* Jones back in the band!  Two Joneses!  

Scott:

Or maybe they could just get Rod Steward and Phil
Collins and Peter Cetera to join, and do an oldies
show and revue. I hear Steve Winwood is free...oooh,
oooh, I know...David JoHansen. Can't you see The Who
doing Hot Hot Hot?

> But, I have a feeling the JPJ rumor is just that:  a
> rumor.  It'd be nice, but.....  

I SAID it was just a rumor!

> Ha!  I guess I have a one track mind........... 

Jo:

Look at it this way: it could be an 8-Track mind, then
you'd be out of date(ting).

> To my dismay, this very am, it happened.  First time
> in several weeks, but...

Kevin:

Bummer, dude.

> Me: "How can one not.  They're awesome."

You know, I can see trouble coming already...

> I started to go down the "yeah, but he was doing
> research..." road, but couldn't.

What I have done is send out a quick: "He's involved
in stopping child porn, he checked out a site and
immediately called the police to report it." That's
accurate and covers it pretty well, IMHO. But...if
that doesn't work, kick him in the balls and send him
on his way. Or whisper "Zep fans, sheesh!"

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

Bet I deal with more people a day than you do. AND
they're almost entirely music fans. Music store, you
know. AND it's a pretty blatantly Who-ish store.
Perhaps I just intimidate them with my steely gaze.

> That was a compliment, Mark.

You know I have a problem with those.

> Is it that bad to discuss something a friend finds
> important?

No...but you don't seem like the discussion is much
fun for you, so it could have been like "THANKS A LOT,
MARK, FOR MAKING ME DISCUSS IT."

> Really.  Name me one other time Pete has made
> haphazard statements regarding anything in the Who's
> career that had legal implications.

Easily done. Did he not say something along the lines
of "I'll never stand on stage with The Who again!"?
And later did. And certainly there had to be legal
issues there. Perhaps not CRIMINAL ones, but legal
ones certainly.

> The only time I can think of is around the
> Cincinnati deaths, and The Who was pretty succinct
> about all of that.

But Pete also screwed things up legally by haphazardly
saying something like "We couldn't let a little thing
like that stop us! Fuck it, we're The Who." Ah, see,
history.

> So what.

Then why worry so, if it's so what?

> Tell me then, how do you raise it in a more neutral
> way?

Like "Isn't it interesting the way his statements are
a bit different. Good ol' lovable inconsistant Pete!"

> Yeah, dumb ol' Pete.

Sometimes. He was addicted to heroin. That's not too
bright. He went to the porn site. Ditto. He recorded
Iron Man. Yeah. He let someone film him dancing to
Barefootin'. See? I could go on and on, but I'm not
Stephen Bishop.

> Yeah, and we wouldn't want to figure that out, if
> true.

In reality, we can never figure out if it's true or
not.

> I know where to put the cork.

That's a bit strong, isn't it? And not what I'm
saying.

> Then suffer from being misunderstood at times.

"Oh the pain...the pain...my back is a disaster
area..."

> 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

I'm no emoticom expert.

> A rebel without a cause?

I DO have a cause. But I'm not a rebel. No confederate
flags `round here. Just British ones.

> I'm not making it up.

All I'm saying it must not be that persuasive, if it's
hard to even find it.

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

That's what happens when you look to close to what he
says.

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

Why worry about it? He's a false prophet, at best. And
it seems most people are hip to his jive anyway. At
this point, he's as relevent as the song Pac Man
Fever.

> 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.

Again, as far as I know with my limited
never-having-been-to-one knowledge, I believe that
going beyond a portal requires payment. He may well
have looked at portals and called that a list of
sites. Who knows, without seeing the actual pages he
saw? I'd say that is merely a snafu in communication,
there.

> An impression that was clearly
> communicated by the press, and folk like my son's
> day care buddy's dad.

Anyone can take something good and make it look bad.
The National Inquirer makes lots of money doing just
that.

> An investigation (if that's what we're calling this.
>  Not my words) must look at all the possibilities.

But not with the idea in mind that there's something
amiss. Objectivity!

=====
Just say Yes to Wes!

        Cheers         Mark Leaman

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