A challenge to David Clark and friends
BassPlyr23
This is an open letter to the residents of alt.music.who. I will no
longer hide behind e-mail on this issue, and will only post in the open
until this issue is resolved.
It is unfortunate that there are some people in this world whose sole joy
in life is attacking other people for their thoughts, beliefs etc. But
when faced with facts backed by absolute proof, these people STILL are on
the attack... well, that just veers into the realm of insanity. This
newsgroup has recently been deluged by posts from a group of people who
hail from a domain called "demon.com.uk" or something similar, attacking
me peronally for daring to disagree with them about something which THEY
claim to be fact and which I, by offering literally MOUN- TAINS of
evidence, have proven otherwise. Let us examine the situation:
The orignal post had to do with a question concerning one of Roger
Daltrey's children, named Jamie. One poster, David Clark, announced that
this child is a girl, when all sources at my disposal indicate otherwise.
At first, this person claimed to be a friend of the Daltrey family, but
later (as his attacks on me bacame more vicious) changed the story to say
that his belief stems from newspaper clippings - however, he will not
state definitively where these articles are and has offered no other
evidence than his say-so. My story has remained consistent throughout
this whole episode: my belief is formulated on the following sources:
1) "The Who: Maximum R&B" by Richard Barnes, who has known Pete Townshend
since art school, and who has worked for and with the Who from its
inception;
2) a friend of mine who works in promotion for Atlantic Records, which
holds both Townshend's and Daltrey's solo contracts, and in that capacity
would have access to a dossier of personal information about the
artist(s);
3) articles in two respected weekly magazines, "Time" and "People"; and
4) the "New York Times," probably the most reputable newspaper in this
country, if not the whole world.
This poster has e-mailed me time and again, saying in effect "Your sources
don't mean anything, I'm right and they're wrong!! Fuck you AND AOL AND
the United States in general!!!" He claims that I attacked him - the fact
is, everything that he has posted in which I am quoted is a response to
something he has written to or about me. I do not attack - that is not
the point of the Internet. When will you and your pals learn that, Mr.
Clark?
My question to the newsgroup is - whom do you believe? Someone whose
source material includes a world-renowned newspaper AND a book written by
a band insider, or someone who makes an unsubstantiated claim about being
a personal friend of a band member, changes his story under pressure, and
organizes his friends to attack innocent people when they don't conform to
HIS view of the world?
As if that weren't bad enough, Mr. Clark apparently belongs to a group
called HFW Inc., whose primary function seems to be to post to the
newsgroup "alt.evil" (enough said, certainly) and harrass people that they
find offensive. Mr. Clark has organized a rather annoying e-mail and
posting campaign against me, calling me a "liar" and a "con-artist."
Exactly WHOM have I conned, sir? I haven't solicited any money in the
newsgroup or stolen anyone's property, nor have I posted anything in the
newsgroup that can't easily be verified by reading a book or a newspaper
(which, unlike Mr. Clark, I have without reservation supplied dates,
publications etc.).
I have presented MY evidence (volumnious and reliable, I think you can all
agree) concerning the gender of Roger Daltrey's SON, Jamie. I now
challenge you, Mr. Clark, your cronies, or anybody else in this newsgroup
to prove me wrong. If I am convinced, I will admit it in the newsgroup.
It is obvious to me, though, that Mr. Clark and his friends are no longer
interested in the truth (if they ever were) and would rather insult and
harrass me while hiding safely behind the anonymity of their Internet
accounts.
It seems that we have lost the point of this newsgroup, which is (and
should be) a celebration and exchange of information about the world's
greatest rock and roll band. That is the only thing I'm interested in
reading about in this newsgroup - I could care less about attacks on my
person. The truth will out, as the saying goes. I now challenge these
smug, self-righteous people to prove me wrong. You haven't done it yet,
and you won't by attacking me or anyone else. I'm also sorry if anyone
might view this as paranoia on my part - I merely wish to open up this
newsgroup one day and NOT see "bassplyr23 is a....." as a headline.
I also challenge you to post in the open, rather than e-mailing. I will
stop if you will.
Lord Gilbert T. Sullivan
BassPlyr23 wrote:
>
> This is an open letter to the residents of alt.music.who. I will no
> longer hide behind e-mail on this issue, and will only post in the open
> until this issue is resolved.
>
> It is unfortunate that there are some people in this world whose sole joy
> in life is attacking other people for their thoughts, beliefs etc. But
>
====================Snip Excessive Bullshit======================
Its time for truth
Mike Duggan
BassPlyr23 wrote:
>
> This is an open letter to the residents of alt.music.who. I will no
> longer hide behind e-mail on this issue, and will only post in the open
> until this issue is resolved.
>
This issue is hereby resolved
You are a dumb shit
Alan McKendree
In article <19970115022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
BassPlyr23 <bassp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Let us examine the situation:
>
>The orignal post had to do with a question concerning one of Roger
>Daltrey's children, named Jamie. One poster, David Clark, announced that
>this child is a girl, when all sources at my disposal indicate otherwise.
I'm just getting in on the end of this shootin' war, but Roger's offpsring
named Jamie is male.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled newsgroup/flamefest.
--
--
Alan McKendree am...@eden.com 512-478-9900 x206
Adhesive Media, 101 W. 6th St., Ste. 210, Austin, TX 78701
Ted Wolf
BassPlyr23 wrote:
I now challenge you, Mr. Clark, your cronies, or anybody else in this
----Hey mr. bassman...let it go, it's not worth the effort, a fight
never is. i've got two kids and quite frequently they want a fight and
the best thing for dad to do is ignore the behavior. the best advice i
ever heard was "would you rather be right or be happy?"
--
Ted Wolf
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin
of little minds..."-RW Emerson
David Clark
If the story below hadn't been twisted so much by a know-all, so-
called Who fan then I wouldn't have even bothered to reply to this.
Sadly, BASSP...@AOL.COM has to tell lies to get the attention he/she
appears to desperately require. Let's quote a rather sad and boring
posting obviously directed towards me.
In article <19970115022...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, BassPlyr23
<bassp...@aol.com> writes
>I will no longer hide behind e-mail on this issue, and will only post
>in the open until this issue is resolved.
>
It was you that started hiding behind email in the first place, not
me. I answered a perfectly good question to the best of my knowledge
only to be shot down by a smug, pompous, know-all, self-righteous git
who attempted to publicly humiliate me AND also decided to send a reply
to my mailbox. The original comments from him/her were totally out of
order and rude. Incidentally, why do you hide behind the name
bassplyr23? Are you too ashamed to tell the world your REAL name?
>It is unfortunate that there are some people in this world whose sole
>joy in life is attacking other people for their thoughts, beliefs etc.
>But when faced with facts backed by absolute proof, these people STILL
>are on the attack... well, that just veers into the realm of insanity.
>
YOU are one of those sad people who attack others for their beliefs,
not me. I was quoting information I have received from several sources
over the years when you launched an unprovoked attack on me. Let's
quote it again just to refresh your memory:
>Umm, sorry to burst your all-knowing bubble, dude, ......
[snip]
>Pardon me for my arrogance here, but don't you hate people who come
>into this newsgroup and act like they know what they're talking
>about... just so that they can have the privilege of being shot down
>by REAL Who fans?
>
Yeah. This is really nice and friendly isn't it? If that is not an
attack then what is it? Your definition of being friendly?
>One poster, David Clark, announced that this child is a girl, when all
>sources at my disposal indicate otherwise.
>
All of my sources state that Jamie is actually his daughter.
>At first, this person claimed to be a friend of the Daltrey family, but
>later (as his attacks on me bacame more vicious) changed the story to
>say >that his belief stems from newspaper clippings - however, he will
>not state definitively where these articles are and has offered no
>other evidence than his say-so.
>
I never once said that I "AM" a personal friend of the Daltrey
household. In reply to one of the _many_ junk email's I have been
unfortunate to receive from you I said "I guess", admittedly primarily
to wind you up, which obviously worked. Sadly you misinterpreted what I
wrote and then took it literally. I have however met Daltrey on several
occasions, as several people here know, but in your opinion I'm a liar
so I can't have, can I?
So you decided to twist the story at least 3 times in one sentence.
The first is above, the second was about newspaper clippings - what rot!
I didn't say it was a newspaper that wrote the article, it was the
'free' colour magazine loosely inserted inside that had the article -
these magazines are usually written by a different set of people to
those who write the newspaper. It was on 'older' rock stars and I
believe there were 4 people being documented - the two that instantly
spring to mind are Roger Daltrey and Paul McCartney as they both live
within 1 hours drive from my house, 1/2 hour in the case of the former.
The article in question was written over 4 years ago and was thrown away
by my father before I had a chance to cut it out. Twist #3: In that
very same message I sent you a list of 5 (five) pieces of evidence that
I had towards my case. Now you are accusing me of only having a few
newspaper clippings.... that I never managed to cut! You are a sad,
depraved liar who twists the facts. Incidentally, it is your attacks on
me that became (not 'bacame', don't you have a spel checkka?) more and
more vicious.
Just to remind you, Bassplyr23, as you so often like to forget the
facts when it is convenient for you, my belief is formulated on the
following sources:
1.) A few years ago in a national UK newspaper magazine an article was
written about him and several other older rock stars and where they live
now. It mentioned that Daltrey lives at his current house with his wife
and 3 daughters named Rose, Willow and Jamie. It is very sad I don't
have a copy of it but as I said above, my father got to it before me
when he was in cleaning mode. :(
2.) An old friend lived just down the road from Daltrey (about 1/2 mile
but effectively the next house) and he was always talking about the
three of them.
3.) I work with the mother of the keyboard player in a very successful
band that has recently toured the US and Japan and Europe with an
amazing response from all who watched. He and his brothers used to
socialise with the girls (jazz clubs, staying at RD's house, etc.) and
the rumour states that Jamie is female.
4.) Shortly after Freddie Mercury died of aids several years ago Roger
was interviewed on TV and he said, "...has 3 teenage daughters at
home..".
5.) He lives close to me and therefore I have been fortunate enough to
meet him on several occasions, where we have ended up having a good
chat.
6.) I have spoken to several people I know who I know deeply like The
Who and every one of them has totally agreed with me about Jamie.
>I do not attack - that is not the point of the Internet.
>
So please explain:
>Umm, sorry to burst your all-knowing bubble, dude, ......
[snip]
>Pardon me for my arrogance here, but don't you hate people who come
>into this newsgroup and act like they know what they're talking
>about... just so that they can have the privilege of being shot down
>by REAL Who fans?
>
This is a blatant, outright attack. Again, I believe you are telling
lies to try and cover up your history over the past few weeks.
>....changes his story under pressure, and organizes his friends to
>attack innocent people when they don't conform to HIS view of the
>world?
>As if that weren't bad enough, Mr. Clark apparently belongs to a group
>called HFW Inc., whose primary function seems to be to post to the
>newsgroup "alt.evil"
>
When did I change my story? I think you are slightly confused - it is
YOU that are changing my story, not me. Try re-reading all that I have
written and then compare to your twisted interpretation. I didn't
organise my friends to attack a **guilty** person because his/her view
differs to mine - my friends (something you apparently don't have) read
my postings and acted on their own accord. They saw I was having a
problem with someone with a bad attitude and decided to help me, friends
help one another. As I have said to you several times, if someone has a
different view to mine instead of having an argument I would prefer to
talk about it in a CIVILISED manner, not your "let's just slag someone
off and start a flame war" which you have been successful in doing -
congrats.
BTW, I am not a member of HFW Inc. - this is yet another one of your
home made stories to slur my name further still (along with re-writing
my messages to suit your needs). Try to sort out the facts first next
time. Mind you, if this is your attitude...
>I haven't solicited any money in the
>newsgroup or stolen anyone's property, nor have I posted anything in
>the newsgroup that can't easily be verified by reading a book or a
>newspaper
>
Neither have I so what is your problem?
>It is obvious to me, though, that Mr. Clark and his friends are no
>longer interested in the truth (if they ever were) and would rather
>insult and harrass me while hiding safely behind the anonymity of their
>Internet accounts.
>
What the £*"!??? I am interested in the truth (probably more than
you). If you can convince me that your "tale" is true then I too will
admit it here. As for the rubbish about hiding behind 'anonymity of
their Internet accounts' whilst insulting and harassing others, then try
looking in the mirror some time, or are you worried you may see the
truth? So BASSP...@AOL.COM, I am hiding behind the anonymity of my
real name - you are absolutely right - have a banana. What is your FULL
real name, I doubt that your parents named you BASSPLYR23??? Please
accept this as another challenge...
>I also challenge you to post in the open, rather than e-mailing. I
>will stop if you will.
>
You sound like a 3 year old child - "I won't if you won't". Sad.
Like I said at the top, I gave an answer in public to a question based
on all the information I have heard over the years. YOU mailed me first
so I believe - and I'm sure that many others will agree too - that the
challenge is for you, not me. I have never had any problems with
telling people my views in public - apparently you do. Why did you send
me 5 copies of the same message a few days ago, and, why have you been
posting the same message (several messages) many times in the same
thread. Either your computer doesn't work properly or your head doesn't
- I think it's not the former.
Personally, my opinion on this (rather these) thread(s) is they have
strayed too far away from the original question. The current theme now
looks like it is following your attitude, conduct and manners.
"Have a nice day".
--
David Clark
Alan McKendree
In article <JtKAmEAI...@llamkuf.demon.co.uk>,
David Clark <da...@llamkuf.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[lots of flamage, dealing with style of posting and personality, snipped]
> All of my sources state that Jamie is actually his daughter.
This is fascinating and horrifying to me, kind of like a car wreck. Jamie's a
guy, a bloke, male, testosterone-enhanced. I would look up what this means in
terms of X and Y chromosomes but I'm too lazy.
>1.) A few years ago in a national UK newspaper magazine an article was
>written about him and several other older rock stars and where they live
>now. It mentioned that Daltrey lives at his current house with his wife
>and 3 daughters named Rose, Willow and Jamie.
Misprint.
>2.) An old friend lived just down the road from Daltrey (about 1/2 mile
>but effectively the next house) and he was always talking about the
>three of them.
Sadly, he's wrong, if he was referring to the three of them as all being
female (as opposed to just talking about them without referring to their
gender.)
>3.) I work with the mother of the keyboard player in a very successful
>band that has recently toured the US and Japan and Europe with an
>amazing response from all who watched. He and his brothers used to
>socialise with the girls (jazz clubs, staying at RD's house, etc.) and
>the rumour states that Jamie is female.
Rumor.
>4.) Shortly after Freddie Mercury died of aids several years ago Roger
>was interviewed on TV and he said, "...has 3 teenage daughters at
>home..".
Don't know about this one.
>5.) He lives close to me and therefore I have been fortunate enough to
>meet him on several occasions, where we have ended up having a good
>chat.
Ask him next time.
>6.) I have spoken to several people I know who I know deeply like The
>Who and every one of them has totally agreed with me about Jamie.
Perhaps you can now educate them as to the truth. If the like The Who they
presumably would be interested in knowing facts about them, not rumor or
errors. Not that it matters a whole heckuva lot, but
A) In the new revised _Maximum R & B_ by Richard Barnes, there is a picture of
Roger's son Jamie playing horns with the Kick Horns.
B) I personally saw Jamie do this (play horns) during one of the 1989 shows.
If memory serves it was Dallas 9/3/89, which was nationally broadcast, and
Pete referred to (paraphrased) "something small and hairy playing with the
horns...not related to me or John."
C) I have seen Jamie in person at a distance of 10 feet or so within the last
three months.
So at this point you and the esteemed readership can believe me or your other
sources. Personally, if I were in your place and I cared enough to follow up
on this I'd start questioning my other sources as to their sources.
Cheers,
David Clark
Last Wednesday BASSP...@AOL.COM started off this thread, ending the
message with:
>I also challenge you to post in the open, rather than e-mailing. I will
>stop if you will.
>
As I pointed out at the time, it was he/she that started emailing me
first in a totally unprovoked attack. I responded in public, as usual,
to these sad attacks, so you can imagine my surprise to find less than
24 HOURS after posting the message quoted above, I received the email
message (below) stuffed in my mailbox! I mean, this is another example
of his/her story changing as necessary to suit his/her needs.
>David:
>
>It seems that you live by the adage "Never let the facts get in the way
>of a good flame war." UNPROVOKED ATTACKS? What nerve!!! What a sad,
>twisted, pathetic person you are. After you and your sick HFW buddies
>called me, my online service and my country (God bless the USA!!!)
>every name in the book, you are saying that my responses are UNPROVOKED
>ATTACKS?
>
> WHO DO YOU THINK YOU'RE KIDDING HERE? You can tell by the posts of
>other people that the regulars in alt.music.who are getting pretty sick
>of this stupidity, which was started BY YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS, who have
>also attacked anyone who has come to my defense. Nobody has defended
>you except your little sick HFW buddies, whose names can be gleaned
>easily from Gareth Gee's Web page.
>
>I have never represented myself as anything except what I am - a high
>school English lit teacher with some knowledge of The Who and their
>retinue. I have never claimed to be on intimate terms with them, as
>you have (although I DID shake John Entwistle's hand once, I do NOT
>consider it the defining moment of my life). I cite sources that CAN
>BE CHECKED, not just "articles that I read years ago that my father
>threw away before I could cut them out" (to quote yourself) and ALLEGED
>conversations with ALLEGED friends of the Daltrey family. All of the
>sources that I quoted are still in print, and can be checked out at any
>bookstore or public library that has microfilm available to it. Unlike
>you, my parents left my magazines and newspaper articles right where I
>left them. My Who archive is carefully preserved in scrapbooks, and
>the articles in question can be scanned and posted online anytime your
>heart desires. You have not offered ANY concrete evidence to change
>the fact of Jamie Daltrey's boyhood (or manhood as the case may be
>(he's close to 16 by now). I have offered plenty in evidence of his
>being a boy. Face it, my English friend, you have lost the war. Cut
>your losses, run up the white flag and surrender.
>
>Among many other things, your friend Gareth Gee distorted something
>else as well - Richard Barnes IS ENGLISH, and attended art school and
>shared a flat with Pete Townshend in the early sixties.
>
>Despite all, I wish you a nice life (since this will be the last time I
>will answer any of your or your friends' pointless attacks), and I hope
>that perhaps someday you will seek the help you so desperately need.
>
>Since I know you are going to take pieces of this e-mail out of context
>and post them in the newsgroup to attack me further, I shall save this
>entire letter and post it to the group when the mood suits me. You
>would be better off just letting it be, and perhaps find yourself
>another punching bag. I refuse to stoop to your level.
>
I give up quoting your bs initial posting as it appears to not be
sinking into your thick skull that you attacked me first - I can only
assume your parents (assuming you were born and not found) dropped you
at birth, therefore knocking out what little intelligence existed there
in the first place. I'm surprised that you have the nerve to deny you
posted an unprovoked attack in the first place. It's YOU that's
pathetic, my friend. It's YOU, BASSP...@AOL.COM that started all this
trouble back in the middle of December by attacking me in public and
also emailing me something as well.
Well, bugger me, another twist! I never claimed to be "on intimate
terms" (to quote yourself) with any member of The Who, and probably
never will. Like I said, I just happened to be in the fortunate
position of being introduced to him by a mutual friend. It sounds like
my ALLEGED friends of the Daltrey family have really struck an open
nerve with you - there is a word to describe this: jealousy. Let me say
it again - JEALOUSY!!! You are so pissed off at me meeting someone as
famous as RD several times and having friends that know him better than
I, you have nothing to do all day than slander my name! BTW, it wasn't
my magazine that my father got to before me, it was his that he paid for
with his own money. He just took it to work to read there the next day
and there it got dumped without him being aware that I wanted any of it.
My parents do leave my magazines and books alone, so again you are
attempting to distort what I have written.
WOW! Thanks for wishing me a nice life - I really do believe you mean
it sincerely - NOT. Why bother writing something that you don't really
mean, I assume you are trying to catch the support (and attention you
are desparate to grab) from other readers of a.m.w. I don't know why
you keep telling me to seek help, it's you that has the problem. Why do
Americans (I sincerely apologies to those to whom this doesn't apply to
- it's the impression I get about the people of America after reading
post after post from morons like BASSPLYR23 - this person is wrongly
destroying YOUR country's reputation) always assume that when someone
has a different view on a subject to them they are totally wrong and
screwed up in the head, and therefore need urgent psychiatric help?
REAL LIFE is nothing like that, Bassie. Oh, and again quoting yourself:
>"since this will be the last time I will answer any of your or your
>friends' pointless attacks"
>
In at least one of the poisoned messages from the above author I
received via email (because he/she is a coward and can't voice all
his/her opinions in public, even if it is the next day after promising
to never use email again) this quoted part of the message has appeared,
in slightly different words. So, when BASSP...@AOL.COM writes "I'm
never going to write to you again via usenet or email" (or words to that
effect) it can be translated that within 10 days there will be several
threads multiposted, a few stray threads and some email clogging up your
mailbox taking up the initial argument again (from a slightly different
angle with a few more twisted quotes), all whilst slagging you off in
general. You have all been warned...
Just for the hell of it, let's re-quote the last paragraph again:
>Since I know you are going to take pieces of this e-mail out of context
>and post them in the newsgroup to attack me further, I shall save this
>entire letter and post it to the group when the mood suits me. You
>would be better off just letting it be, and perhaps find yourself
>another punching bag. I refuse to stoop to your level.
>
You are missing the point. It is YOU that reposts other peoples posts
out of context. I have been accused of writing things that I have never
written - just check back through a few PUBLIC replies to your postings
for proof. You are telling me that you will post the message quoted
above to a.m.w when the mood suits, but then in the next paragraph you
tell me to just let it be. Take note of your own comments in paragraph
#2, (others are getting a little tired of this stupidity) and DON'T post
it. After all, I have done it for you above. Why don't you prove to
everyone how much of a big boy/girl you are and DON'T do a follow up to
this or any other thread. You may even find a few people may start to
like you for it - (this means you may get some friends).
Although you say you don't care about this whole situation and it
doesn't bother you, etc., it obviously does. I could tell by you last
EMAIL to me that you were really bothered and UPSET. You DO care. Just
do everyone a favour, DROP IT.
Have a nice day.
--
David Clark
C.R. Krieger
David Clark <da...@llamkuf.demon.co.uk> managed to type:
" Last Wednesday BASSP...@AOL.COM started off this thread, ending the
"message with:
<Snipping the crap>
If EITHER of you is representative of your respective nations, it's a small
fuckin' wonder that humans are still blowing one another's heads and assorted
other body parts off with automatic weapons.
Grow up and give it a rest. We do NOT want to read it here.
C.R. Krieger
"Ignore 'em m'dear, they're beneath your dignity." - W.C. Fields
Dr. Know It All
After playing wife to his cellmate Bubba, C.R. Krieger wrote:
>
> David Clark <da...@llamkuf.demon.co.uk> managed to type:
>
>
> If EITHER of you is representative of your respective nations, it's a small
> fuckin' wonder that humans are still blowing one another's heads and assorted
> other body parts off with automatic weapons.
>
> Grow up and give it a rest. We do NOT want to read it here.
>
>
Speak for yourself, shitbrains. If Mr. Clark wants to speak,
we want to listen.
--
"No words are needed to follow up a truly sick fuck like you. I hope
someone Blows All Your Pathetic Brains Out. You are the Queen of low
scumbags." thunderr in 32E399...@ix.netco.mcom
Miles Catherwood
>
>Speak for yourself, shitbrains. If Mr. Clark wants to speak,
>we want to listen.
>
Hmmm... and who are the "we" you're referring to? Gee, I guess you
mean you and all the other fake-named guys who've been hangin' around
here, acting like four year olds, getting a thrill out of swearing in
public for the first time, and calling people fags. So which name do
you prefer, moron? Gareth? O'Sullivan? Knowitall? And what
pathetic compulsion makes you feel it's necessary to use so many
different aliases in one newsgroup anyway? Ah, who cares. Consider
yourself killfiled, several times over.
C.R. Krieger
"Dr. Know It All" <drno...@drnoitall.com> managed to type:
"Speak for yourself, shitbrains. If Mr. Clark wants to speak,
"we want to listen.
Whattya mean "we"? And that's "MR. Shitbrains" to you, Doc. Don't forget to
fuckin' capitalize it again, either.
Have we made a shambles of this thread yet? :^) Just hoping.
("Show a little respect. It's a fuckin' OPERA.")
TheOx...@aol.com
It was never about the truth. It was about you and your friends being dicks.
Fuck you.