No Subject

[clancy@nusc-wpn.arpa]

	Just realized that Andrew Marvick's (Maverick ? No offense, ya know 
who i mean) took offense with  Paul Dolber's drunken, "insipid" (i think 
that was the term used) posting in regards to Kate, TWS, his family's view-
point of Kate's music, and other philisophical mutterings. 

	Well i can't speak for any one else but I thought that it was a 
highly entertaining digital monologue.  I also can't argue for or against
his views on TWS seeing as how I have not listened to it, (i try not to 
buy compilations especially when I already have every song ('cept one) in 
my collection already) but..(gasp,gasp,..bloody run -on sentences) but 
any one who enjoyed The Dreaming can't be all bad.

	If Dolber feels like contributing any thing else, I hope he doesn't 
let the eloquent whinings of one individual prevent him.  It is refreshing 
to hear at least one individual proclaim that "The emporer has no clothes!!".
Sure, Kate is good, really good, but this whole Love-Hounds bit is getting
to be like a decadent church, where the emphasis is not on the worship
of the deity of choice but on who can appear the most devout.  A church 
in this situation needs an iconoclast or two to break the constraints of blind 
dogma if it want's to attract new adherents.

	I think that's carrying a silly analogy far enough, besides it's
time to go home.

jc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

------