OFF: Filter, non-filter, cancer either way/ dont read this/delete

[ANDREW GARIBALDI]

Honestly - you're all behaving like mebers of Parliament!!!
This is all giving mwe some insight as to how Brock must feel with his merry
band of men.
In an effort to get back to reality, I note that the comment on the Brock Q
& A session has been lacking - no reactions anyone? For my part, it would
appear that Dave Brock is not stuck in the '70's, like some people, and that
he still has a vision of Hawkwind progressing into the future, albeit
perhaps not what many of you out thwere particulalry want but for which he
hopes you will give him the time of day.
Clearly he sees villains in the stage along the way, but as people fall out
slightly, others fall back in and when push comes to shove he clearly
believes that he is holding the reins on the good ship Hawkwind.
I say three cheers for Dave who, when faced with some of the things that
seem to go on in Camp Hawkwind, it's a wonder that he hasn't given up and
taken his bags with him.
So, we have a whole slew of new music to lok forward to, tours with various
people, maybe even the start of Brock solo outings (or some form). No,
Hawkwind aren't Gong, and Brock isn't Daevid Allen, but Allen has his
fingers in many musical pies, some of which I love, some of which I hate,
but at least he's still out there and after many bumpy rides, Gong are
stronger now than at any time since the '70's.
.......and for thsoe who say that the Hawks left good albums behind in the
'70's, has anyone seriously listened to all of 'Xenon Codex' lately? Go
ahead - revisit that tonight and tell me if it isn't one gem of a real
Hawkwind album.
Enough - supper's ready........
Andy Garibaldi


> My apologies for this stoopit waste of time. "<>"
> =====
> In a message dated 6/19/00 7:08:20 AM, dmckeehen at HOTMAIL.COM writes:
>
> <<
> As I understand, several others have done the same thing, regarding the
same
> person.>>
>  ======
> and golly gee, this one is wondering who that 'same person' might be.
> probably the same miscreant characterized as an 'idiot' by mr. mckeehen
> yesterday.
> but mr. mckeehen  likes to play 'allusions' like this.
> this is hardly the first, or second, time.
>
> i thought i was having an amusing volley w/the 'lemmy shmemmy' lady and
> another fellow on saturday morning [they both corresponded w/me off-group
> too, that day].
> however, mr. mckeehen had a problem w/this and felt he had to go on-group
and
> _allude_  that i was the  'idiot' in question.
>
> mr. mckeehen is hung up on his interpretation of 'protocol'.
>
> anyone else w/a problem w/me, in general or specifically saturday,
> please clobber me off-group.
>
> however, mr. mckeehen _cant_ do that, because i blocked _his_ off-group
mail
> months ago.
>
> and i repeat my apology for this waste of time.
> but i'm _tired_ of the 'allusions' of the _stoneless_ mr. mckeehen.
>
> "<>"
> larry boyd