marvicK TaKes ouT The sTeel balls...sTrawberries? sTrawberries?!?

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: marvicK TaKes ouT The sTeel balls...sTrawberries? sTrawberries?!?

 >    I am sorry that you feel that way Andy...I had hoped that the Love-Hounds
 >would be receptive to critical discussion, but apparantly they are not, if,
 >in fact, you are indicitive of how the majority of the others feel. Perhaps
 >I will take my "supercilious nay-saying" elsewhere, for it does not seem to
 >be listened to here.

     Once again, IED will point out the obvious, that he is only
_one_ Love-Hound. You make a mistake (one which many Love-Hounds
would probably be annoyed at) in assuming that IED speaks for
the group as a whole! Probably only a small minority of the readers
of Love-Hounds agree with many of IED's opinions. And no-one, even
Andrew Marvick, agrees with _everything_ IED says in this forum.
So whether you leave Love-Hounds or not is a decision which
only you can make, and not one which IED will accept any
responsibility for.
     Jeez, you people act as though IED has you all outnumbered
or something! The truth is IED is badly outnumbered by his
critics. Don't be so easily intimidated. If you're sure your
opinions are worth sharing with the group, go ahead and share them.

 >>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...

     No, IED does not see any contradiKTion in his statement
above, taken out of context though it is. IED's follow-up of yesterday
was, however, an attempt to explain the difference between "perfection"
in Kate's work as IED understands it, and "perfection" as the rest
of you seem to understand it.
     He hopes that you have all understood by now that IED's convictions
are, indeed, quasi-religious. Insofar as that is true, he cannot be
expected to share your view that Kate's work is "fair game", so to speak,
for challenges and criticism. In his opinion, anything of that kind is
a mistake, a priori.
     On the other hand, IED took the trouble yesterday (amid the
ocean of words he posted) to look at the recent criticisms of _Reaching_
_Out_ on their own mundane terms, and to point out some of that song's
extraordinary qualities in a very specific way. He hopes that even those
who are blind to the Angels in Kate's work will have noticed IED's brief
descent to their humdrum level of observation, and that they will have learned
something new about the song as a consequence--something which, with
any luck, might actually cause them to perceive at least some shadow
of a reflection of a glimmer of what IED sees in Kate's work.

 >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?

     Certainly IED's tone is often "haughty", and often "patronizing".
But it is very rarely _coolly_ so. When IED gets particularly obnoxious
it's because he is genuinely offended and angered. Drukman's remarks
on the other hand smack of a cool, detached--in short, _smug_--attitude.
The attitude of one who knows nothing but does not _realize_ it. Ergo,
IED's word "supercilious". IED thinks there's a big distinction.

 >Wait a second.  I recall a posting after somebody mentioned they had
 >seen the video (not on "Now Hear This") that you had not seen the
 >video and that any and all details were desperately wanted.  You didn't
 >post it but the author claimed to have talked to you on the phone about
 >it.  Am I looney or what?  And I just can't believe that MTV has NEVER
 >shown the complete video unless there are naked breasts involved.
 >Highly unlikely.

     That was either one of the other videos or at a point prior
to IED's first sight of _La_A_. IED did, he assures you, see
both showings of the _Love_and_Anger_ video on MTV's _Now_Hear_This_
on the night in question. Since you seem to be calling IED's
truthfulness into question, IED invites you to e-mail him privately
for the names of two other Love-Hounds with whom IED was in telephonic
contact with that very evening. They would probably be willing to
corroborate IED's testimony! And as for your faith that MTV _must_
have shown the "entire" video at least once, IED thinks you are
being naive. After all, we're talking about the last two seconds,
not the video proper. If the laugh _is_ on the video, it comes on
_after_ the screen fades to black, so MTV would not exactly be
censoring it by cutting it off after the "Yeah!"
     Anyway, IED has never denied the possibility that the
video doesn't contain the laugh. He has only pointed out that
Drukman has no way of knowing yet whether it does or doesn't.

 >Or better still let's start a news group called
 >"rec.music.perfect" with Andrew Marvick as the moderator and
 >sole contributor. I'm truly disappointed that anyone who
 >professes to love of Kate's music would have such an attitude.
 >What is the point of this forum if it is not to openly discuss
 >Kate's art?

     IED loves open discussion of Kate's art; it is one of
the virtues of Love-Hounds which has kept him active in the group
for four years now. IED will always say what he thinks, however,
and if that means saying that some of Kate's critics are out of
line and don't know what they're talking about (as in the recent case
of Drukman), then so be it. Open discussion is fine. That being true,
irresponsible and unsubstantiated trashing of Kate Bush's work in
Love-Hounds _without_ swift verbal retribution from IED is not a likely
prospect, so if you plan to stay with us you'd better get used to it.

 >From: gatech!mit-eddie!eddie.mit.edu!henrik@uunet.UU.NET (Larry DeLuca)
 >Subject: _This Woman's Work_ & _This Man's Work_
 >Date: Tue, 5 Dec 89 22:15:01 GMT
 >
 >Well, I agree with IED - when I first heard the single mix of "This Woman's

     That _is_ a welcome sight! Someone agrees with IED about something.
Thanks for the support.

     Jon Drukman writes:
 >And as for your LOYALTY... Well, I wouldn't want to name dates
 >and times but I recall a period where Love Hounds was not on its
 >feet very often and some certain person promised to pledge his
 >allegiance to another mailing list...

     Hey! At that time Doug had shut down Love-Hounds for many weeks,
and there was no indication that he would ever fix whatever was
wrong and start it up again. And you know that as well as IED, Jon.

 >Nothing is beyond criticism, Mr. IED.  (I'm deliberately
 >avoiding calling you Mr. Marvick because the Andrew Marvick I
 >know would never act the way IED's been acting lately.)

     Well, Jon, IED admits willingly that he and Andy are two distinct
personalities, but they share a common viewpoint. If you and Andy
were arguing on the phone and you told him the nonsense you've been
spouting in Love-Hounds lately, Andy might be more polite than IED,
but he'd still say you were completely, utterly wrong. Anyway, the
situation would be different--there it would just be him you were
trying to convince; here you're spreading your anti-Kate propaganda
far and wide. The nature of the attack calls for stronger
counter-attacks.

 >You once said that you were adopting the pedantic dry as dust tone
 >of the Reichian scholar.  I would say that like your role model,
 >you have gone past the point of scientific usefulness into the
 >realm of total insanity.  But it is not too late to turn back.

     IED appreciates your reminder to the readers of this group
that IED's style (_and_attitude_) are modeled after Wilhelm
Reich's. Like Reich, IED is indeed _completely_off_the_deep_end_
when it comes to his subject of study. And like Reich, there is
in IED's insanity a powerful inner logic. And although IED is grateful
to you, Jon, for your concern, he must let you know that it is
indeed too late for IED to turn back. His dementia is irreversible.
     Hey! Did you people see that huge DOR cloud in the sky last
night, emanating straight from Drukman's place? DOR ALERT! DOR ALERT!
Break out the cloudbusters, fellow Orgonotical Engineers!

-- Andrew Marvick