Same as it ever was???

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

>From: JOELTLE515@xxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: Pete's Statements
>
>if you read carefully, it's still the same story.

I've read carefully, multiple times, and I'm not coming to that same conclusion, on many fronts.
Doing research for an autobiography is vastly different than doing research for a crusade to bring heightened awareness about a list of child porn sites, just to focus on one.

>roger can you hear me? 

Yes, "but I'm about done with that man.".  ;-)

>Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 19:28:28 -0400
>From: Joe Lewinski <lewinski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>In essence it's the same story.

In essence?
Yes, I'm sure the press deals with essences all the time.
I know the people who smirk when I mention Pete's name don't feel that way.

I don't get that thinking.

>There are some more specifics
>in the more recent statement.

There are clear changes.
And, I don't think there is a question as to whether Pete is a Pedophile or not.
I've never once thought that.
But, I did fully understand the need to research this crap for his autobiography in an attempt to gain better understanding about ones past.
What happened to that?
Now, it's just research for a friend to heighten awareness of a list of sites.
*That's* not "naive" as Roger put it.  *That's* admirable.
So, what is it that Pete did that makes Roger call him naive??
  
>From: Oust_the_pretender <bushchoked@xxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Re-Pete & Todd is Godd & repeating old Pete

>Scott:
>
>IT...NEVER...ENDS!

Hey, take it up with Pete!

>Oh, and I want to make it
>clear my statement in no way indicates I agree with
>House.

Damn!
Coffee all *over* my desk.

>Kevin:
>
>OK...here's some info for you: Pete has never ever
>been consistant in his statements about anything.
>Feel better now?

No.  Pete's no longer the drug/booze abusing person he once was, and thus isn't as "impaired" (for lack of better words) as he used to be.
I don't believe that he is making mistakes here.
The stakes are just way too high for fuck ups and mistaken inconsistencies.
Plus, I'd be willing to bet that *anything* stated, let alone *written* on his web, is reviewed and approved by his legal.

>If not, take two Bob and call me in
>the morning.

Aye?!

>> but the
>> underlying message is
>> that Pete is not a pedophile.
>
>Joe:
>
>Clearly. Obviously. Thank you.

I don't believe that's ever been a question on this list.
Don't let Mr. "IGTC was Pete Bashing" House influence you good people of IGTC!
We are greater fans than most, because we care enough to want to fully understand.

>From: "Schrade, Scott" <sschrade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: Pete's Statements
>
>> I know we'd like to have the *truth* all the time,....
>
>It'd be nice, wouldn't it?  Too much to ask?

Heaven forbid.

Kevin in VT