[jwalsh07]

As a Woodstock "veteran" and a US Army veteran post Woodstock, I can assure you that there was no Woodstock to be over.

It was a party not a movement.

[Victor]

"....As a Woodstock "veteran" and a US Army veteran post Woodstock, I can assure you that there was no Woodstock to be over. It was a party not a movement....."

You missed the point, I'm afraid. Woodstock was/is largely held as the defining symbol of the emergence of Socialist/Communist/LeftWing politics in this country. It represented the triumph of the Berkley intellectuals of the early sixties.

Woodstock in and of itself was a party, true, but look at the "values" brought forward by the party goers: Sex with no consequences, drugs, false gods/religions (astrology).

Marxism had come home to roost. No one at Woodstock worried about who was going to pay for the party; "somehow", "somebody" would pay...but not the party goers.

Hope you had a good time, by the way. I'M not implying that you represented anything just by going. I attended a similar event that same Summer; 400,000 people attended in Dallas, Texas, music was the best (Chicago, Santana, Led Zep, you name it).

[bonesmccoy]

sorry for my generational response, but my impression of Woodstock is that the attendees created or participated in a "cultural revolution" which jeopardized our nation's ability to innovate, create, and build.

If I'm wrong, are the producers and editors of the many Woodstock / 60's era documentaries wrong?