Re: !>oug's interpretation of _HoL_

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick
 Subject: Re: !>oug's interpretation of _HoL_

     OK. You've made an excellent case, !>oug. Seriously. IED
isn't convinced, but he now can see (thanks to your more detailed
explanation yesterday) that your way of looking at the song makes
eminent sense. What you say about Kate's words to you being compatible
with your own reading is also true (though the fact that she didn't
stop you and disagree with you is _not_ an indication that she agreed
with you!; and although as you say the couple in the video are still
on the move at the end of the video, IED's point was that the _heroine_
has overcome her "hounds" by taking charge of her feelings, exactly
as she does in the song). In other words, IED concedes that your
interpretation is a legitimate one, but he still sees no reason
whatever for favoring yours over his own. He must add that you
were _not_ convincing until pressed by IED to offer a more detailed
explanation of what you meant.
     Now about this "bet" business: what are you whining about, !>oug?
IED already addressed this nonsense quite frankly and openly in L-Hs
when you brought it up several weeks back. He isn't "ducking" anything!
It was IED's understanding that you were going to find the source for
your highly dubious "Nice to Swallow" line, and if it could indeed be
directly and indisputably traced to Kate Bush herself, IED would
apologize for doubting you and admit publicly that you knew more about
Kate than IED did. (If you're still expecting a trip to London or
something like that, IED already said he would bet no such thing, so
what's your problem?) To date you haven't, so far as IED has read in
Love-Hounds, come up with any proof at all. Do so and IED will repent.

-- Andrew Marvick
   P.S.: But please, !>oug, can we put the poison pens away for a while?
Such bickering among Love-Hounds veterans is unseemly, even blasphemous,
at this holy time.