Mailbag

[IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu]

 Subject: Love-Hounds Digest
 From: Doug Alan <nessus@GAFFA.MIT.EDU>
 To: Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU

 >   From Marvick's most recent blathering I deduce that he has taken the
 >coward's way out.  While announcing in public that he would not violate
 >KT's rights, he has gone ahead and done it in private.  To his obvious
 >pretense must now be added the charge of hypocrisy.
 >A postscript should be added to the card -- "On behalf of all those who
 >have ignored your express wishes and violated your privacy, a great big
 >'Fuck You and the Horse You Rode In On'.  Kiss, kiss.".
 >
 >-- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com

     IED would only point out (and not in order to try to excuse anyone's
hypothetical legal transgressions) that there is a huge difference
between cowardliness and hypocrisy. One can certainly consider cowardice as
relevant in this hypothetical situation, but hypocrisy is not applicable,
since all parties hypothetically involved have already acknowledged many
times their awareness of the moral conflicts involved. As for Tim's suggested
postscript, IED and all others who ever entertained the notion of making
copies of the demos certainly do _not_ have sentiments like those which Tim
so crudely descibes. Their awareness of the conflict attendant to such a pro-
ject is every bit as acute as Tim's. Their consideration of the possibility of
making copies contained not the slightest scrap of the kind of vulgar arrogance
which Tim's postscript ascribes to them. On the contrary, they correctly
traced their temptation to copy the tapes to their unharborable passion to
_hear_the_music_--even if that passion might only be satisfied by violating
Kate's supposed wishes. That's neither arrogant nor hypocritical--it's simply
an honest admission of weakness. Also weak--but hardly hypocritical--would be
a reluctance on the participants' part to confess publicly to a crime, if
should they decide to commit it. In owning up to the fact that such a
project would be a crime, and that it might possibly (though this is
not, of course, known) be upsetting to Kate, the fans involved could
not accurately be called hypocritical. The fact is that these people's
actions, though perhaps illegal, could only be seen as a function of
their love of Kate's art, and of their simple inability to withstand
such a powerful musical lure. It is of course possible that Tim's moral
rectitude is more formidable than that of the more than 140 people who
considered participating in such a project. It is far more likely,
however, that his passion for Kate's art is simply weaker than theirs.
     The biggest mystery is what Tim Maroney is getting out of this
discussion group, anyway? Is it just the satisfaction of posting
foul language in a public forum, or what?

-- Andrew Marvick