Andrew G's Comments on Off: etc

[linuxchaos.org.uk]

hear hear!!

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