How about knocking off the insults, IED! (Re: MisK.)

[munnari!fgp.hcru.uq.oz.au!andy@uunet.UU.NET (The Wubba Wubba Mon)]

In <8911281953.AA10284@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, that funster Love-Hounds@GAFFA.MIT.EDU writered
>and the foolish, supercilious and deplorable Jon Drukman. All of you are
>welcome to use these headings, of course, though IED ventures to express
>the forlorn hope that in borrowing them, Drukman will make at least
>a minimal effort to apply some modicum of intelligence to his future
>postings. (Should this prove beyond him, Drukman can be expected to
>try feebly to steal some of IED's share of that commodity, too.)

>-- Andrew Marvick (a bitter, bad-humoured but _true_ Kate Bush fan)

I realise that Andrew Marvick's IED "character" has a style which is
deliberately swaggeringly gregarious and overbearing, which I take into
account when ploughing through his massive missives, but he seems to be
in a decline, and the IED persona has gone rather overboard.

We've seen him time and time again make snide comments at the redoubtable
|>oug, ripping quotes out of context and making assinine remarks about them.
- No, I'm not gonna drag up quotes.  I'll leave that for others.

One that immediately comes to mind is the |>oug KaTe interview, in which
|>oug allegedly mistranscribed a word.  Shock! Horror! Castrate him!!
As a result, IED launched a tyrade against him.  The phrase "Now listen to
this, love hounds. This is really rich!" sticks in my mind.  To add insult
to injury, IED admitted |>oug's version of the transcribed word was a
real word (something about Donkeys), whereas IED's was a made up one, which
knowing KaTe the way he does, must definitely be the truth.  Hail Caeser!

Another two events were |>oug's "repuation on the line challenges" to IED
about digging up quotes.  Two occasions in which |>oug did exactly as he
said he would, and IED eventually responded by insulting |>oug.

IED continually insulted Tim Maroney, so that he's no longer seen in this
newsgrope any more.  This is a shame.  Now he's starting on the hoopy
Jon Drukman (hope I got the spelling right!)  and quite frankly, I would
rather that we lost IED than the upbeat and always interesting Jon.
I would suggest that this "love-hounding" of non-IED views off gaffa  is not
in the best interests of gaffa.

Claiming that "God is on our side" is a very popular way of justifying far
right wing politics.  Claiming to be a "true KaTe fan"  (and also saying
that "KaTe is God") appears too close to this for comfort, for my tastes.
I can't take IED's postings as parody anymore.  There's little or nothing
discerning them as different anymore.  I'm not asking for censorship,
just some disgression and moderation.  Maybe smaller amounts of output
from Mr. Marvick will restore the quality?

/\ndy

PS.  Keep up the good work |>oug.

--
Andrew M. Jones, Systems Programmer, 	ACSnet: andy@fgp.hcru.uq.oz[.au]
c/o French Dept,  Univ. of Qld, 	Work Phone: (07) 377 2075
Brisbane, Qld. AUSTRALIA. 4067 		O/S Phone:  +61 7 377 2075

"No matter what hits the fan, it's never distributed evenly....."
[This article may not be sold in part or whole for profit.]