Pete Townshend a peadophile?

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 57
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    from somebody: [quote]shutup <hr></blockquote>

    look, the Who are, and have always been a mediocre band with a lot of "hits". They have some good tunes, the 'kids are allright" is a good album . . . but they are also all over the place without a coherent and consistent style, except maybe way back when when they were part of the Mod thing . . . (done much better by the Kinks anyway)

    Much of their stuff is pretentious, i mean: "who are you!! who?! who?! . . tell me who the fuuck are you?!?" gimme a break . . . oh and the worst: "nobody know what it's like to be the bad guy" heehee . . . even in high school I was embarassed when I wold go to a party and some young guy there would get all excited about that song . . . not knowing how idiotic and sentimental it is . . . I mean, what indulgent crap! . . . and I saw them too, way back when, and they played, literally, one good song, and one only: "My Generation" the rest of the concert was a very long and painfull experience.



    anyway, It's a known fact that most abusers were themselves abused. Perhaps he honestly thinks that it really was for "research" . . . maybe he was 'testing' himself . . . or some other kinnd of psychological self-dishonesty . . .

    but then again . . he wrote a few decent songs . . . so I believe him

    no but really . . . I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.



    once my wife and I were talking about porn . . . er had weard a news report about kiddie-porn . . . she is not very web savvy, and I told her that it would probably be possible to find, maybe not child porn but young porn . . . and so she tried . . . which really freaked me out I stopped her before she opened any of the sites that came up in the search . . .I didn't want to be listed as an "offender" simply because of a stupid conversation . . . it made me wonderr if even the search that she did somehow got us listed or our ISP . . . it was scary . . .





    .



    .



    [ 01-13-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
  • Reply 42 of 57
    [quote]Originally posted by superkaratemonkeydeathcar:

    <strong>

    as for answering to his public he's said he's afraid this might ruin his career, so yes, he does have to answer to his public, what do you think his explanation that he's writing a book is? he said it to the press not to the police in private...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    How do you know what he said to the police in private?
  • Reply 43 of 57
    [quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

    <strong>

    the who allways were overated anyway . . .</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Kind of goes with being a rock star doesn't it? Name one who isn't over-rated. Not sure what that has to do with this story, though.



    [ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
  • Reply 44 of 57
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:

    <strong>



    Kind of goes with being a rock star doesn't it? Name one who isn't over-rated. Not sure what that has to do with this story, though.



    [ 01-15-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>Ok... how about Led Zappalin . . . consistent and consistently excelent at what they did



    or the Beatles
  • Reply 45 of 57
    [quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

    <strong>Ok... how about Led Zappalin . . . consistent and consistently excelent at what they did



    or the Beatles</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I liked both bands (although Led Zeppelin could get a bit baroque at times) but you're missing my point. Don't you think they've both had more than their share of over-the-top adulation? Being a rock star pretty much means that if you fart somebody will think it's cool.
  • Reply 46 of 57
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    This was originally posted on Pete Townshend's website in January 2002:



    <a href="http://members.aol.com/artpatchdotcom/differentbomb.htm"; target="_blank">Pete Townshend</a>.
  • Reply 47 of 57
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>This was originally posted on Pete Townshend's website in January 2002:



    <a href="http://members.aol.com/artpatchdotcom/differentbomb.htm"; target="_blank">Pete Townshend</a>.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    I read it, and you know what . . . it sounds like the writing of an obsessed man who may or may not be a peadophile . . . perhaps he knows how bad it is and still does it . . . perhaps he doesn't do it . . . but, also, perhaps he is a peadophile and could feel the heat closing in . . . after all, he just happens to mention that his ISP was targeted and that the FBI are coming to the UK.



    so, it doesn't really prove anything.



    I guess his sentiments are very good and I agree with him . . . especially the horror of that kind of thing happening to such young people as his description of that one image . . . but, I can't help but feel that there is something a bit creepy about his tortured prose that keeps circling around the issue like an obsessive who knows that his hands don't need to be cleaned for the thousandth time that day but he cleans them anyway . . .

    I don't know . . . it all just a bit fishy . . . he knows there are a rash of crack downs and someone he knows and is associated with is being tried so he writes this thing, publishes it, and talks to a lawyer before hand knowing he will need alibies?!?!?



    there is a trope in grammar, its called prolepsis: which means, basically, making excuses before hand when you knw that you will need them . . . or something (my omnidictionary wont open right now)

    anyway . . . does the prose sound strange to anyone else?



    [ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
  • Reply 48 of 57
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by pfflam:

    <strong>

    so, it doesn't really prove anything. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No, it doesn't. And the real scary thought is that, at least according to the arrest warrant, he was "making" child pornography. If so, obviously he's sick.
  • Reply 49 of 57
    Did you know that during the time it takes to write an average post here on AI two children dies of hunger?



    In other words: Would it be a subject here on AI that a peadophile(do you really spell it like that?) nobody knows was caught? I doubt that one day goes by when that doesn´t´happen a dozens of times in US alone. What makes it special if he did or did not do it just because he is a famous mucisian?
  • Reply 50 of 57
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [quote]Originally posted by Anders the White:

    <strong>Did you know that during the time it takes to write an average post here on AI two children dies of hunger?



    In other words: Would it be a subject here on AI that a peadophile(do you really spell it like that?) nobody knows was caught? I doubt that one day goes by when that doesn´t´happen a dozens of times in US alone. What makes it special if he did or did not do it just because he is a famous mucisian?</strong><hr></blockquote>Have you ever read Freud's Civilization and its Discontents?!?!



    . . .anyway, sure, perhaps we should all just hang our heads and wallow in our Guilt every time that we post on AI?!?!? Perhaps you, Anders, exemplify a higher moral calibre by pointing out the miserable facts that we have no control over, by making sure that we "feel" a pang of pain at the perpetual existence of the downtrodden.





    You are fullfilling an ancient role: the priest/manipulator: he who feels power through the facile manipulation of other's emotions by making them feel 'guilt.'

    as Nietzsche said "beware the men in black"

    why beware? because they manipulate you by instilling "feelings" no matter what the valuidity of those feelings, and those feelings work: they make us fearfull, and they make us compliant . . . but they seldom make us actually help people

    . . . perhaps, as Nietzsche also said, its truly a crime to 'pity' people..... because that not only condescends to them but insults oneself as well, whereas a better motivation, through which one might help others, would be out of the magnanimity that grows from one's strengths: we give because we have(as in possess) to give, and we don't hate ourselves for it (self hatred like that is as useless as your post) . . .or we don't give and still don't hate ourselves . . . wereas you don't give and hate yourself for it . . .which is better? and why?



    or,

    Perhaps, if you care so much you could go out and volunteer some time and effort to distributing food, or, writing an autobiography of your selfless deeds and "research" into children's sufferings throughout the world, and by doing so you could stop letting children starve during each one of your posts!!
  • Reply 51 of 57
    :eek:



    Goddam you just spared me $$$ for psyciatric treatment. Thanks



    If you knew me a bit better you would know I used the starving kids for my own pleasure to point out the silly in using SO much energy on one consumer of children pornography. If you want to discuss something you are appaled by in society (like child pornography) I think its a shame only to take up one case and not discuss it more generally. I wasn´t trying to make anyone feel bad or guilty or anything like that.



    I tried to put the discussion into perspective with a sledge hammer. Next time I will try to use a more prescise instrument.
  • Reply 52 of 57
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Maybe your insightful post would have been even more appropriate had you posted it in the thread "Hottest Phot Ever!" . . thereby we would have had a double dose of "feelings" . . . not only would we feel bad for all the starving children but we would feel bad for caring about such utter inanities. . . .



    Oh yeah . . . I'll make sure to eat all my veggies
  • Reply 53 of 57
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Don't forget the rain forests!
  • Reply 54 of 57
    You don´t get it do you?



    If we only had one thread about Bush and it was about his harmless skin cancer I would probably say something like "Hey people. Perhaps we should discuss what he is planning with regards to Iraq"



    If we only had one thread about religion wouldn´t it be kind of sade if it was about the fond used in the most popular 1976 version?



    If the "Hottest photo ever" only had pictures of early Apple models and deserts in it I might have reminded you about nudity.



    And when we have one thread about peadophile I think its a shame its about what one person, who happens to be known for his music, did or didn´t do instead of discussing the real issue.



    In my post above I admitted that perhaps starving children wasn´t the ones able to turn the discussion in the right (in my view) direction and that I used the children as means for my own end. I wasn´t trying to make anyone feel guilty or anything.



    See?



    [ 01-17-2003: Message edited by: Anders the White ]</p>
  • Reply 55 of 57
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Got it.



    lets start another thread about peadophilia . . . which I do believe is atrocious, and then we can keep ragging on Pete Townshend and his false consciousness and darker adictive urges here in this thread . . . no?!
  • Reply 56 of 57
    Lets do that.



    My post in this thread will then be: "Why on earth are you people so interested in what one person did or didn´t do? You don´t have enough information yet to decide if he is guilty anyway. It would be much more interesting if we discusssed peadophile in general terms. Like why is there so much focus on it today compared to a decade ago? Are more people peadophile or have we just not seen it until now?"



    Oops...There I did it again...
  • Reply 57 of 57
    To include the former teenaged sexpot in a thread about pedophiles is ingenious as a one-liner, Anders. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Sign In or Register to comment.