Re: Mailbag

[stewarte@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (The Man Who Invented Himself)]

Hairy frogs from Neptune forced IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU to type:

[in response to my comment as follows:]
> >As far as I can tell, IED, this belief of yours -- that the British CD
> >is more correct than the US version, or corresponding single -- is based
> >on the assumption that it was supervised by Kate.  
>
>     Once again you have failed to read IED's words with any care.
>He did not say that the fact that the laugh is connected to _LaA_
>on the UK edition of the CD _proved_ that the laugh belonged with
>this track. In fact, he went out of his way to say that it might
>even turn out that the laugh does _not_ belong with _LaA_. What IED
>_did_ argue--with perfect reason--was that the UK CD is _far_more_likely_
>to have been supervised, or at least listened to and commented upon,
>by Kate herself than the U.S. CD. 

I'm willing to take your word for it that this was your original statement;
I do not bother to maintain an archive of all IED's pronouncements.  However,
you later said that the UK CD constituted the only tangible evidence that
the laugh belonged one place or the other.  To be perfectly specific, to
minimize further accusations of imprecise reading, you said that any other 
supposition, not based on the UK CD, was made without any tangible evidence.  
That it was _possibly_ overseen by Kate herself is hardly what I call 
"tangible evidence".  

>[...] And it is--to this anyone here can attest--most definitely
>IED's opinion that Kate's mature work is "perfect". He is not the
>least reluctant to admit to holding this opinion. Further, he not
>only holds such an opinion, he Knows it to be a faKT.

Here we see the essential fallacy, which IED, being a basically 
intelligent fellow, certainly realizes.  He knows full well that
he has spoken inherently contradictory nonsense by declaring an
opinion to be a fact (excuse me, a faKT).  I have to believe at
this point that IED only continues in the hope of baiting others.
I'm having fun so far, though, so I'll just point out two more
bits of extreme silliness:

>IED Knows. You do not. It's as simple as that. 

Ah, IED, you should come visit me some time, so I can introduce you
to Tim, our household's regularly visiting Jehovah's Witness.  He
talks just like you do.  Perhaps you could swap him the ObsKuriTies
tapes for some copies of "The Watchtower".  

> >I do not listen to
> >Kate's music searching for flaws, but if there are things I do not
> >like, I don't assume that it is my own ignorance or lack of taste.
>
>     And there is where you make your one fundamental, crucial and
>tragic error. For of course it _is_ your "own ignorance and lack
>of taste," as you put it, which leads you into such hopeless
>self-deception.

I would just like to point out here that IED has repeatedly used the
word "supercilious" to describe those of us who dare to criticize
Kate's works.  I would further like to note that my dictionary defines
"supercilious" as "coolly and patronizingly haughty".  Surely I can't
be the only one who think that word applies much more to IED?

-- Stewart, who doesn't even care if IED accuses him of not being
a _true_ Kate fan.
-- 
"I don't know what you think of this country,
 but I know what it thinks about you..."
				-- Jazz Butcher
/*  uunet!sco!stewarte  -or-  stewarte@sco.COM  -or-  Stewart Evans  */