Re: Kate Bush's "THE WHOLE STORY"

[rbt@genrad.com (Robert B. Tufts)]

In article <8906220059.AA01679@GAFFA.MIT.EDU> Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU writes:
>Really-From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
>

>
>If you are turned off by an "annoying" voice then you miss the whole
>purpose of Kate's music and are a fucking wimp.  


Supposidly this is a moderated newsgroup. I'd like to know what purpose
the "moderation" serves, especially when the moderator sets such a fine 
example. I kind of expected that the original poster was "asking for it"
by treading on "sacred ground" (of some devotee's), but the original poster
phrased it as a "what's so special?" opinion/inquiry, not "you're all
idiots!". This looks like the Rushdie issue. "He doesn't like Kate! Death to
the infidel!" Grow up Doug!  Kate Bush is not your "run-of-the-mill" artist.
I'd say most people either like, or can't stand her music. I would not waste
time trying to defend your (fanatical) tastes, but just tell the person that
Kate is not "eveyone's cup of tea", and suggest they look elsewhere for
critical opinions, and leave it at that.

I would also offer that it would be better that this group become "unmoderated"
. Then at least people could use the "R" key and reply (or flame) privately 
without being sent out for everyone to see (in the heat of the moment).
It's a royal pain to manually type in a path, and I would rather see "R"
work, for all the current benefits we are supposidly receiving by being a
"moderated" group.

And now some real blasphemy:

I like Kate Bush, BUT SHE's HUMAN! :-)

-Bob T.