Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by BrokenLight on Dec 9, 2010 22:09:47 GMT -5
would love to see it especially if they're doing quadrophenia in full. not my #1, 2, 3 or even #4 choice for classic rock headliner but i'd take it. makes me wonder if they started thinking about getting the who in 2008. let me explain:
in 2008 pearl jam covered the who. in 2003 warren haynes covered radiohead during his solo show on the main stage. things like that have always been in the back of my mind but i know that doesn't mean anything. if it did, i guess we could expect in paul mccartney in 2012 and neil young in 2013.
basically what i'm saying is, do you think when a band covers another at bonnaroo, do you think organizers think to themselves "hmmm, maybe we should go after that band"
although it does strike me as odd that the jacket covered erykah badu in 2008 and the next year she played
Post by SCUT FARKUS on Dec 10, 2010 10:19:55 GMT -5
Say what you want about The Who, Juggertits, but you know damn well that Gordeaux didn't touch that kid.
1. There has been no evidence (and no suggestion by anybody actually involved in the case) that the girl was molested or harmed. 2. The pictures he took were clean and didn't trouble the court. 3. The parents started apologizing a day or two later and saying they didn't want a big deal made of it. The Hells Angels did their best to keep the story out of the news. 4. The prosecution dropped the charges without any input from the parents.
Not to mention he isn't really that high-profile of a musician, so spare me that argument.
Post by SCUT FARKUS on Dec 10, 2010 11:21:29 GMT -5
I'm not going to argue that it was good judgement on his behalf, but is it so far-fetched to believe that a meth addict wife of a Hell's Angel's member wouldn't overreact to something?
There are tons of reports from the evening that he was taking pictures of people on his segway the entire night, children and adults the same. He's been known throughout his entire career to walk around the lot before and after a show with a camera taking pictures, so it's not like it was something out of the ordinary.
By the way, do some research, and see if you can find any other mention of this "secluded boathouse" at Jones Beach Amphitheater. You will find that it doesn't exist. Jones Beach security was present, and apparently they saw no cause for concern. I'm sure you'll weave some magical story about them being paid off too.
I'm anything but an "apologist", and what he did was stupid, but its laughable to believe that he had the intent to molest or harm this girl. That is all.
I've said it before and you can be damn sure I'll say it again...
HALF OF THE WHO IS A WASTE OF A PERFECTLY GOOD HEADLINER SLOT!!!! It hasn't been the who since Keith died and Entwistle was just as big a loss. It's shameful that they still tour as The Who.
It's pertinent to Townshend's problems with the law.
Not really, Pete had images on his computer that were certainly sexual in nature, and said they were research for a book since he had been molested himself as a child. Mike took pictures of a fully clothed young girl, and almost got his ass whipped by hells angels. Gary Glitter bought 12 year old prostitutes in Vietnam and got thrown in jail. Are you sure you know what pertinent means?
Post by SCUT FARKUS on Dec 10, 2010 11:55:53 GMT -5
Okay, all of the articles you mention pertain to the Mike Gordon case, which is the only instance in which a boathouse at the amphitheater has ever been mentioned. I guess it would be foolish of me to believe that media outlets don't "borrow" stories from each other with the same information. I double-dog dare you to find it anywhere else.
It's funny that you defeated your own argument against security being present in literally the following sentence. The fact is that the staff was not "alerted" the girl was missing. The crackhead mother went straight to her husband and his crackhead gang, and they carried out an act of vigilante justice.
It's near impossible to argue intent, but you can look at people's actions to infer intent. For instance, if a guy walks into a convenience store with a gun, he might not have intent to rob the place - he could just have forgotten he had it on him, or any other reason. However, looking objectively at it, you'd have to wonder why he would bring a gun in?
I am guessing you are not a very good lawyer yet or at least not a criminal attorney at all. As to the news stories every time they think they have a case against someone famous they always print and reprint the most lurid details. Do you not think it is interesting that no more details came out of this? I am pretty sure if there had been one shred of evidence it would be all over the place by now. However all that is there is hearsay and speculation. No matter how little publicity the hells angels wanted if there was any evidence the DA would have perused charges against him.
Last Edit: Dec 10, 2010 11:56:44 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
I am guessing you are not a very good lawyer yet or at least not a criminal attorney at all. As to the news stories every time they think they have a case against someone famous they always print and reprint the most lurid details. Do you not think it is interesting that no more details came out of this? I am pretty sure if there had been one shred of evidence it would be all over the place by now. However all that is there is hearsay and speculation. No matter how little publicity the hells angels wanted if there was any evidence the DA would have perused charges against him.
Again, as we've been over, there ARE no more lurid details - as he was taking pictures, he got beat up. Nobody is claiming that there are more lurid details, or anything else. My only point has been that something weird went down, and that his behavior was strange. And no, DAs don't "peruse" charges just because there's evidence, there actually needs to be enough to build a case. Clearly, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED ANY NUMBER OF TIMES, Gordo got beat up before anything could have possibly happened.
And clearly you aren't a lawyer of any kind because for whatever reason you don't understand the idea of intent.
Let me put it this way - taking a 9 year old girl to a secluded place with the intent of taking pictures of her without her parents' knowledge seems like a phenomenally stupid thing to do, right? So either a) Mike Gordon is a phenomenally stupid man, or b) he had some kind of motive. (NOTE: I am NOT SAYING that had a motive, only that it was possible.) It is from this potential motive for doing something so stupid that you can infer intent.
Well you started off saying that he was a pedo, and now have more reasoned rationed response. So I am assuming your intent was just to stir up shit because you are bored.
Well you started off saying that he was a pedo, and now have more reasoned rationed response. So I am assuming your intent was just to stir up Leno because you are bored.
Did I get it right that time?
I defy you to find where I called Mike Gordon a pedo in this thread. The closest I came was wondering whether AC kept preteens backstage.
Now, Pete Townsend, yeah, that guy's probably a pedo.
In this thread you did stick with potential kiddy diddler I will give you that.
As to Pete I just do not know, he is in a little more of a gray area. I think it is obvious from some his songs and statements he has made that he was molested. However a high number of the molested go on to do it themselves, but researching for a book on the subject might also be a cathartic way for him to deal with it. He certainly for instance has published more than one essay about the ease of accessing child porn, and railing against it. Here is what wikipedia has to say on it, you can go over there and check the sources as well.
Townshend was cautioned by the British police in 2003 as part of Operation Ore. Following a news leak that Townshend was among the subjects of the investigation,[33] he publicly stated that on one occasion he had used a credit card to access a website advertising child pornography.[34] Townshend, who had posted essays on his personal website in 2002 as part of his campaign against the widespread availability of child pornography on the internet,[35][36][37][38][39] said that he had entered the site for research purposes and had not downloaded any images.[34][40] A four-month police investigation, including forensic examination of all of his computers, established that Townshend was not in possession of any illegal downloaded images.[41] Instead of pressing charges, the police elected to caution him, stating, "It is not a defence to access these images for research or out of curiosity."[42] In a statement issued by his lawyer, Townshend said, "I accept that I was wrong to access this site, and that by doing so, I broke the law, and I have accepted the caution that the police have given me."[42][43]
This kinda reminds me of the case against the duke lacrosse program. Both parties were doing stupid shit that put them in compromising positions, and everyone was so quick to go to the "victims" side causing irreperable damage to otherwise respectable citizens.
In this thread you did stick with potential kiddy diddler I will give you that.
As to Pete I just do not know, he is in a little more of a gray area. I think it is obvious from some his songs and statements he has made that he was molested. However a high number of the molested go on to do it themselves, but researching for a book on the subject might also be a cathartic way for him to deal with it. He certainly for instance has published more than one essay about the ease of accessing child porn, and railing against it. Here is what wikipedia has to say on it, you can go over there and check the sources as well.
The whole Pete Townsend thing ties back into my "stupidity" argument. If you're doing research for a book that you KNOW is on a controversial/illegal subject like this, why not have your lawyer/publisher/whoever go to the police and inform them ahead of time?
I agree it was stupid of him, he admitted as much himself. That being said, while I am not a lawyer I do testify as an expert witness in computer forensic cases on occasion, and one of teine, and I's drinking buddies is works for the TBI in the internet child porn division. Every time I have been on a pornography (not child porn that is a criminal matter) case, or that my friend has been on one you tend to see a collection not just ephemeral viewing. The fact that the police did not find anything makes me a little more likely to believe him. Of course it is just as possible that he got wind of it, and had the wherewithal to hire someone with knowledge to make it go away. It is not easy to erase all tracks of something but it certainly is possible.
Okay, all of the articles you mention pertain to the Mike Gordon case, which is the only instance in which a boathouse at the amphitheater has ever been mentioned. I guess it would be foolish of me to believe that media outlets don't "borrow" stories from each other with the same information. I double-dog dare you to find it anywhere else.
It's funny that you defeated your own argument against security being present in literally the following sentence. The fact is that the staff was not "alerted" the girl was missing. The crackhead mother went straight to her husband and his crackhead gang, and they carried out an act of vigilante justice.
Of course media outlets borrow from each other - that's how the news works. One of the article I linked to cites Reuters and the Associated Press, which tend to get reprinted/quoted in pretty much every paper in the country. Also, I love how your only defense for this "there is no boathouse" thing is that you've never heard of it before. So there are a bunch of articles that mention it, and not a single one that repudiates this, yet because you've never heard of it, it doesn't exist. Well, I've never heard a mention of any supply closets in Madison Square Garden, so when I'm there for NYE I'll kill a guy and dump the body there, since clearly those closets don't exist. Right?
And, the staff wasn't alerted that the girl was missing?
At a concert by the Dead at Jones Beach's Tommy Hilfiger Theater, police were alerted that a nine-year-old girl was missing.
This is fun - it's a slow day at work.
You're truly a master at taking things out of context and distorting them to support your incorrect views. The point that I was making that you failed to refute stands. It's not a matter of whether or not I know of its existence, it's the fact that no boathouse has ever been mentioned outside of this particular case. You won't be able to argue that the boathouse was far away from the amphitheater, either, because otherwise the mother and gang would not have known where to find him.
Secondly, I'm not sure what the security being alerted like you previously claimed has to do with the police being notified. Just another instance of you building a straw man argument and hoping nobody will catch it. Great work.
Let's be clear, nobody has ever thought of Duke students, particularly Duke lacrosse players, as "respectable." That incident didn't change anyone's mind, merely reinforced some opinions.
Duke university is actually a very good well respected school. Their lacrosse program is one of the best in the nation. This incident tainted the school and almost killed the lacrosse program.
Being an NCSU alumn I like to kill on Duke just as much as the next person but your argument is completely unfounded imo. Even if everyone in the nation doesn't regard them as respectable the case had an impact on more then just duke lacrosse players. Alot of highschools in NC were trying to get their club teams sponsored by the school system at the time and alot of the detractors used duke lacrosse as a scapegoat against it. Not to mention the shit I caught for playing lacrosse b/c everyone assumed we were all dumb jock party animals.
My point is that because of the gravity of rape or child molestation charges people are quick to assume someone is guilty which imo is wrong.
