Re: Roger vs. Pete

["Scott Schrade" <schrade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Back to the simple example of a banana;

Gee, how can I argue against your..........."banana example."  Here I am,
trying to enlighten you with the truth, & I can't get through because you're
stymied by the "natural wrapper" on a banana!  Argh!!  I won't give up, though.

> There has to be a balance between Pete and Roger.  They are a good team.  

It's always been a shaky balancing act between those two.  Wasn't it exciting
a few years back when Roger went to Pete & bared his soul (!) & Pete cried
& they really grew as friends.  

That was a major shift in their relationship.  They gave up a lot of the youthful 
bullshit at that moment.  I think they started seeing each other almost, & this 
shouldn't be taken the wrong way, they started seeing each other as fellow war 
veterans from the same unit.  Just two blokes who went through a lot together. 

> I'm looking forward to seeing Roger on the history channel as well. 

This is a good gig for him.  I bet he got paid a handsome sum.  He was signed
for multiple episodes.  And if it gets good ratings & some good press, Roger
may be busy with this project for a few years.  Not constantly, of course.  But
he's not just delivering lines in some TV studio; he's hopping from state to state
& being put through some tough shit!  That all takes time to film.

Pete should take note of Roger's energetic work ethic & FINISH HIS FUCK-
ING AUTOBIOGRAPHY!!!  

Speaking of Pete, I read a post on the Relayers list about that Who conven-
tion that's getting ready to start in London & someone said they heard that
Pete was "out of the country" & probably wouldn't be a surprise guest at the
festivities.

Hmmm....if Pete's really "out of the country" then that's good news because
that means he's being allowed to travel.


- SCHRADE in Akron

So long as the mother, Ignorance, lives, it is not safe for Science, the offspring, 
to divulge the hidden causes of things.
   - Johannes Kepler, 1634