--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "lurkernomore20002000"
steve.sundur@ wrote:
> >
> > The thing is, that Jerry was so anti mood making, more of
> > the low key type. I have to think that he probably felt
> > the standing O went on too long by about one minute.
>
> Any relatively modest person is going to find that long
> an ovation uncomfortable. It may be that I was a part of so many (at
least what I felt to be) gratituous standing O's, that I tend to have
an adverse reaction to them. But, FWIW, I feel a standing O was
entirely appropiate, and well deserved, but at least for me, I think it
could have been abbreviated. You quickly begin to look silly
> when it goes on and on like that. But I'll bet he also
> recognized and appreciated that the folks applauding were
> not just expressing their affection for him but also
> making a statement to the TMO that they hadn't been happy
> about his being excluded for so long and were delighted
> that things seemed to be opening up.
>
> > Plus, it just seemed ingongruous to see Jerry in that
> > environment. Kind of like, these other guys weren't a
> > "pimple on the old man's ass".
>
> Again, I think he realizes things are changing. And he's
> not so impossibly modest as not to be aware that his
> renewed participation would be an asset to the movement.
>
> Joe asked what Jerry would say in private about the raja/
> royalty stuff. I'm just guessing, but I'll bet he'd say
> not to worry, that it wasn't going to last much longer.
>
> Basically, I doubt he would have attended that gathering
> if he didn't feel the movement wasn't beginning to shift
> direction. I suspect that was a big part of the reason
> for the general ebullience in the room too.
>
> Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that was the
> feeling I got from that video.
>
