Even more of the same

[Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>]

>      That's Mill, :>oug, not Mills. If you're going to use Mill as an
> ally (and it's a pretty presumptuous stretch, in IED's opinion), at
> least learn how to spell his name.

Personally, I don't care too much about spelling, IED, so flaming at
me about it isn't going to do any good.  I'm also slightly dyslexic
(if you will allow a slight perversion of a word that is defined to
mean a severe problem, rather than a minor problem), so it's very
difficult for me to remember the correct spelling of words I do not
use frequently.  Furthermore, I really don't wish to spend the time to
look up in the dictionary every word I use.  There is a finite amount
of time I can spend writing articles for Love-Hounds, and I'd rather
not waste it with such pointless endeavors.  In addition to this, I
have found that in most cases if someone stoops to attacking your
spelling in a philosophical debate, their argument is intellectually
void, so including a few spelling errors is a reasonably good
bogometer.  Furthermore, for one who does not spell my name correctly
to my own face, you should talk!

Now, onto the real debate, which I could have started into immediately
if IED wasn't being an ass.  Why is using Utilitarianism to support my
beliefs a "pretty presumptuous stretch"?  Utilitarianism says roughly
that to determine whether an action is good or bad you should try to
determine how it will affect the average happiness of the world.  If
an action increases the happiness of 100 people by X amount, but
decreases the happiness of one person by Y amount, unless Y > 100*X,
the action is a good action.  Using this principle to analyze the
question of whether or not to distribute copies of Kate's demo tapes,
one might certainly determine that it is the right choice to make.

Now, Utilitariansim has its problems and it's really a bit more
complicated than described above to be a system of ethics that you
would want to follow as a rule.  I do, however, consider myself a
modified Utilitarian, and I object when someone says that my system of
beliefs is not even to be considered in the set of reasonable beliefs.
Since John Stuart Mill was one of the primary proponents of
Utilitarianism, I think that I can count him at least partially on my
side.

>      Now, on to the interpretation argument. :>oug and IED have a
> fundamental disagreement on this question. :>oug takes the "modern"
> view that the "received" meaning has equal or--at least in :>oug's
> view as he expressed it to Kate herself in 1985--greater credibility
> than the "intended" one.

First of all Andy, it really bugs me that you continually insist on
criticizing my beliefs of the past.  I am not arguing for my beliefs
of the past, and I don't want to try to defend them.  I don't believe
in them any more, so what are you trying to convince me or anyone else
of?  I am arguing for my beliefs of the present -- yet you continually
strive to avoid the present for the safety of the past.  Criticize
what I'm saying NOW -- not something I said four years ago.

Furthermore, I never have nor do I now believe that received meaning
has "greater credibility" than the intended one.  At the time I
interviewed Kate, what I believed, for some of the answers Kate gave,
was not that my interpretations had any more validity than what Kate
intended, but rather that Kate *really* did intend my interpretations
and that she just wouldn't admit it because she was trying to be
difficult and mysterious.

For years, however, I have not believed this peculiar delusion, even
though it *is* quite evident that at times Kate is purposely
difficult.  Take, as example, her avoiding of the issue when I asked
her how she does her interesting backwards-forwards vocals.  All she
would say is that it is a lot of work, despite me asking several
times.  When Kate wants to be difficult, however, she has a way of
expertly avoiding the issue and never really answering the question.
I truly doubt if she ever just straight-out lies, though.

>      Your lengthy quote from John Carder Bush's letter (already
> well remembered by IED) is a very interesting explanation--of John
> Carder Bush's opinions. They quite obviously stand in conflict with
> the statements Kate herself made to your face, :>oug.

No they don't, Mr. Mavick.  As Kate has said many times, not just to
me, "the interpretations that people have of your songs are nothing to
do with me anyway.  I think it's up to them to get what they can out
of the song".  This statement by Kate doesn't go to the religious
extent that John Carder Bush's statements do, but they are not
inconsistent with John Carder Bush's either.

> You then attempted to malign IED's citations from your own
> interview as somehow sneakily edited and incomplete, whereas in
> fact IED posted them precisely because it was _you_ who had taken
> such pains to excise the contextual referents of your _own_ citation
> in the previous day's posting! 

Andy, you are being inane.  Kate's views on other people's
interpretations of her songs as expressed by her to me have been
echoed by her almost verbatum in many other interviews.  The only
reason why I didn't use an almost identical quote from a different
interview is because it would have been much more difficult for me to
dig one up.

And this context that is supposed to be so important for other people
to know of in order to understand Kate's quote, is completely
irrelevant.  The question to which Kate answered that it's up to the
listener to get what he can out of the song, came after the very first
question I asked.  Thus, unless Kate can read the future, all that's
relevant to understanding what Kate meant, is that very first question
I asked her.  Did you just repost that one question?  No, you reposted
half the bloody interview.

In light of this, it is clear what your tactics are.  Your argument is
an implied one of the form, "Doug had some untrue beliefs in the past,
so what he believes now must also be untrue".  This, of course, is an
intellectually bankrupt form of argument, and is complete
reprehensible, especially for someone who considers himself a
scholar.

> _The statement which you ascribe to Kate [refering to "Night of the
> Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow"] is so unlike her, is so
> extraordinarily uncharacteristic, that IED doesn't feel it to be
> unreasonable of him to ask you to support or withdraw the citation.

It's not unlike her at all.  It's quite within her character.  Kate
has made many sexual allusions over the years.  Are you really trying
to convince anyone that the same woman who sings "I'm living in that
evening with that feeling of sticky love inside", "But some night,
she'll run back in fright if she picks on a Dick that's to big for her
pride", and "The sheets are stained with your tiny fish", would be out
of character if she said "Nice to Swallow"?  Get real.

> He doesn't see why he should have to make a bet out of it. When IED
> quotes Kate he nearly always offers the source voluntarily, and when
> he doesn't, he is always ready to search for the source on request.
> And when he can't, he admits that it is only a vague memory which he
> cannot place. He thinks you ought to be willing to make the same
> commitment to your quotations of Kate that IED makes.

Andy, my recollection of the quote is not some vague memory.  It's no
more vague than my memory of Kate saying that Gaffa is gaffer's tape
was.  I just don't happen to remember exactly where I read it.  It
could take me many hours or days to find the quote again buried in my
filing cabinet, and I don't have any desire to go to all this effort
just to satisfy your paranoid delusions that I am just making this up
to deceive you.

>      However, if you can come up with the actual quotation, and
> it sticks to Kate unequivocally and to IED's satisfaction, IED _will_
> publicly state that ":>oug Alan knows more about Kate than IED does
> or ever will, so help IED God." How's that? You'd have to admit that
> would be quite a coup to score over IED. But airline tickets? Come
> on, be reasonable.

First of all, Kate will never tour again, so it's an incredably safe
bet.  Second of all, what's $300 between friends.  In any case, it
will be a great pleasure to hear you say "|>oug /\lan knows more about
Kate than IED does or ever will, so help IED Kate."  However, I am
only going to go to all the work of digging up the quote, only if you
will agree to say it on the condition that it appears as I have said
in print attributed to Kate in a reasonably-sized interview with Kate
in a major periodical.  There is no way that I'm going to do all this
work if you're just going to say, "It must have been a typo."

> IED would just like to add that he doesn't think it unreasonable of
> him to doubt your attribution of this phrase to Kate in light of the
> fact that your idea of a proper source for substantiation of
> Russian-language idioms is a Certs commercial.

Well, Mr. Marvick, I have no great respect for the manufacturer of
Certs.  However, most people who make commercials don't just insert
random words into their commercial for no reason at all.  Perhaps no
one at all in Russia uses the term "Babooshka" as a term of affection
and Certs just picked the word randomly out of a Russian dictionary.
On the other hand, perhaps they just happened to pick the word because
it *is* used as a term of affection.  I make no claim other than that
it is worth looking into.  I never said it was proof of anything.

I'll tell you what, Andy.  I happen to work with a woman who
immigrated to the U.S. from Russia.  I'll ask her.  Then we won't have
to rely on the word of Certs.

>> Well, I asked Kate, *HERSELF*, and she said that the misspelling was
>> NOT intentional.  By your very own reasoning, Mr. Marvick, the
>> discussion is over. QED, IED.

>      IED stands in awe of your ability to remember previously unmentioned
> statements Kate made to you which just happen to contradict the current
> position IED has taken against you, :>oug. However, he will accept your
> word that Kate actually said "No, I just made a mistake and spelled
> it wrong."  Of course, she was saying "No" to just about every suggestion
> you made that day...

Mr. Marvick, you are really starting to get on my nerves.  I have
mentioned the above statement in the past in this very forum, and I am
sure the archives will prove it.  It is obvious that your memory is
beginning to fail you.  And such a shame at such a young age.  I did
not ask Kate about the spelling of "Organon" *that day*, but rather I
asked her the next day when she appeared at Tower Records.  It was the
only question I asked her as I handed her my Japanese import of *The
Dreaming* to be autographed, so I remember the question and her answer
quite well:

	DOUG: You might not remember me... but I interviewed you
              yesterday.

Boy, I was pathetic back then, wasn't I, eh?

        KATE: Of course I remember you.
        DOUG: Can I ask you another question?
        KATE: Yes.
        DOUG: Is there any particular reason why you spelled "Organon"
	      differently on your liner notes than Reich spelled it?

Kate smiles in a way that gently says, "Where do you come up with all these
silly questions?"

        KATE: It wasn't intentional.
        DOUG: It wasn't?
        KATE: No.

I hand Kate my record and Kate goes to autograph it...

        KATE: I'm sorry... I've forgotten your name...
        DOUG: It's "Doug".

Kate signs the record and hands it back to me.  It says "To Doug, Love
Kate Bush".

        DOUG: Thank you.

I walk away and curse myself for again maiking myself a fool in front
of Kate.  But I spot John Carder Bush and am able to talk to him somewhat
intelligently about *Brazil* and about how Kate does her two way
messages (which Kate herself would say nothing about).

"You're all alone on the stage tonight..."

|>oug