Andrew G's Comments on Off: etc

[Chris Warburton]

ORDER...ORRRDERRR!!!!!
>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